Poisons

[lesliedellow]

Didn't I ask you once if you were a supralapsarian?

If so, I don't remember your answer.

You asked me a question that was something like that, and I said that, if I had to classify myself, I would probably be supralapsarian, but that I might also add that it was illegitimate speculation.

 

[The Cadet]

Yes.
Sad.

Hi, guy living in Germany here. Our general practitioners actually study medicine, just like American general practitioners. I could turn to literally any doctor in a 30-mile radius and ask them what they thought of your ideas, and get a unified "what a load of nonsense".

 

[AV1611VET]

You asked me a question that was something like that, and I said that, if I had to classify myself, I would probably be supralapsarian, but that I might also add that it was illegitimate speculation.

Okay.

 

[Kenny'sID]

I was replying to AV.

My mistake....sorry

 

[mmksparbud]

Simple fact: the phrase "grape juice" does not appear in the NT, but the word "wine" does.

In Jewish society wine was also mixed with water, and unmixed wine was considered a strong drink. Several Old Testament passages spoke of the difference between wine and strong drink (Deut. 14:26; 29:6). The priests were to avoid BOTH when they went into the tabernacle (Lev.10:8-9). The Talmud (oral traditions of the Jews from about 200 BC to AD 200) includes instructions concerning wine in several chapters. One section (Shabbath 77a) states that wine which does not carry at least 3 parts of water is not wine. It would be considered a strong drink. [vii]


Rabbis said that food unblessed was unclean. They taught that wine, unless mixed with water, could not be blessed. Some rabbis demanded three parts of water; some demanded ten parts water before they would bless it. While the standards varied somewhat, it does give us some insight into the common practice of mixing wine and water in the days of Christ. (This might help shed light on the miracle at the wedding of Cana.)
When we read of drinking wine in the Bible, it must be understood in light of the customs, standards, and practices of that day. When we read the word wine we should think “wine mixed with water” unless it specifically says unmixed or strong drink.

http://www.salembible.org/biblestudies/issues/alcohol/alcohol_3.htm

 

[lesliedellow]

In Jewish society wine was also mixed with water, and unmixed wine was considered a strong drink. Several Old Testament passages spoke of the difference between wine and strong drink (Deut. 14:26; 29:6). The priests were to avoid BOTH when they went into the tabernacle (Lev.10:8-9). The Talmud (oral traditions of the Jews from about 200 BC to AD 200) includes instructions concerning wine in several chapters. One section (Shabbath 77a) states that wine which does not carry at least 3 parts of water is not wine. It would be considered a strong drink. [vii]


Rabbis said that food unblessed was unclean. They taught that wine, unless mixed with water, could not be blessed. Some rabbis demanded three parts of water; some demanded ten parts water before they would bless it. While the standards varied somewhat, it does give us some insight into the common practice of mixing wine and water in the days of Christ. (This might help shed light on the miracle at the wedding of Cana.)
When we read of drinking wine in the Bible, it must be understood in light of the customs, standards, and practices of that day. When we read the word wine we should think “wine mixed with water” unless it specifically says unmixed or strong drink.

http://www.salembible.org/biblestudies/issues/alcohol/alcohol_3.htm

There is no shortage of references in the Bible to water being drank, with or without alcohol being added to disinfect it. Therefore, when it is wine, rather than water, which is spoken of as having been consumed, it seems reasonable to suppose that wine is what is meant. Coming back to the marrige in Cana of Galilee, it seems unlikely that it was the quality of his water which the governor of the feast would have been complimenting the bridegroom on.


"Then said the trees unto the vine, Come thou, and reign over us.And the vine said unto them, Should I leave my wine, which cheereth God and man, and go to be promoted over the trees?" (Judges 9.12-13)

From whence would the vine have got the idea that its wine was going to cheer God and man, if its role was to be no more than a disinfectant for water?

 

[mmksparbud]

I quoted a Jewish site with what the practice was and if you choose to not believe it--it is you right to ignore it. For those who wish to be accurate--this is what the practice t the time was.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Some rabbis demanded three parts of water; some demanded ten parts water before they would bless it.

That says they are undecided on the amount, so the natural question fowling would be did any only require 1 to 1 or less in the old days or even no water? Who decides on those amounts? On the other side of that, as I understand it, the Jews are pretty serious about this stuff so it wouldn't surprise me if nothing was lost with time and they use the same mix as they originally did.

Anyway, what Proof is our strongest wines today? And if anyone who knows the answer to that can finish out my point, it would be helpful.

 

[lesliedellow]

I quoted a Jewish site with what the practice was and if you choose to not believe it--it is you right to ignore it. For those who wish to be accurate--this is what the practice t the time was.

It was a practice to disinfect water with wine. Since nobody knew of the existence of microorganisms at the time, they presumably discovered by accident that mixing wine into water seemed to have a benificial effect upon the water. But that does not mean that wine was never consumed as wine.

 

[mmksparbud]

That says they are undecided on the amount, so the natural question fowling would be did any only require 1 to 1 or less in the old days or even no water? Who decides on those amounts? On the other side of that, as I understand it, the Jews are pretty serious about this stuff so it wouldn't surprise me if nothing was lost with time and they use the same mix as they originally did.

Anyway, what Proof is our strongest wines today? And if anyone who knows the answer to that can finish out my point, it would be helpful.

"Some rabbis demanded three parts of water; some demanded ten parts water before they would bless it"
1 to 3 or 1 to 10---undecided between these, not undecided about it being mixed with water at a minimum of 1 to 3.

 

[Kenny'sID]

"Some rabbis demanded three parts of water; some demanded ten parts water before they would bless it"
1 to 3 or 1 to 10---undecided between these, not undecided about it being mixed with water at a minimum of 1 to 3.

You missed my point...if they are undecided about that, meaning someone missed the boat somewhere on what's going on, where else did that happen? Are we sure even those amounts are correct?

 

[mmksparbud]

You missed my point...if they are undecided about that, meaning someone missed the boat somewhere on what's going on, where else did that happen? Are we sure even those amounts are correct?

Well, if you wish to take it that way. I prefer to take it as it says--Some Rabbis wanted 1 to 3, some wanted a 1 to 10.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Well, if you wish to take it that way. I prefer to take it as it says--Some Rabbis wanted 1 to 3, some wanted a 1 to 10.

I'd prefer it were biblical so I'd be sure...you know what happens once man gets his hands on things.

But since I don't have that, I'm skeptical, and just want to make the point I have reason to be.

 

[Cearbhall]

People can still take medical antibiotics you get at the GP's, but one shouldn't take those for viruses because viruses aren't caused by bacteria.

Do people seriously do that?

 

[[serious]]

Of course! The only thing worse than hydrogen oxide is dihydrogen monoxide

Hydric acid is pretty nasty too.

Oxidane is probably the worst due to the blistering effects of the vapor form.

 

[[serious]]

Diazepam [is] warfarin

adrenaline [is] warfarin

Ergo, Diazepam is adrenaline

I assume hot is also cold, and up is down.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Anything bad in Pop Tarts?

Is there anything good in pop tarts? I am banned from eating anything processed that has more then 5 ingredients on the list that they put on the box. What is interesting though is if Evolution were true then the cave man diet would be the best diet for us. The evidence does not support that.

 

[The Cadet]

What is interesting though is if Evolution were true then the cave man diet would be the best diet for us.

http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-04/your-paleofads-are-paleo-bs

The paleofantasy is a fantasy in part because it supposes that we humans, or at least our protohuman forebears, were at some point perfectly adapted to our environments. We apply this erroneous idea of evolution producing the ideal mesh between organism and surroundings to other life-forms too, not just to people. We seem to have a vague idea that long long ago, when organisms were emerging from the primordial slime, they were rough-hewn approximations of their eventual shape, like toys hastily carved from wood, or an artist's first rendition of a portrait, with holes where the eyes and mouth eventually will be. Then, the thinking goes, the animals were subject to the forces of nature. Those in the desert got better at resisting the sun, while those in the cold evolved fur or blubber or the ability to use fire. Once those traits had appeared and spread in the population, we had not a kind of sketch, but a fully realized organism, a fait accompli, with all of the lovely details executed, the anatomical t's crossed and i's dotted.

To think of ourselves as misfits in our own time flatly contradicts what we now understand about the way evolution works.But of course that isn't true. Although we can admire a stick insect that seems to flawlessly imitate a leafy twig in every detail, down to the marks of faux bird droppings on its wings, or a sled dog with legs that can withstand subzero temperatures because of the exquisite heat exchange between its blood vessels, both are full of compromises, jury-rigged like all other organisms. The insect has to resist disease, as well as blend into its background; the dog must run and find food, as well as stay warm. The pigment used to form those dark specks on the insect is also useful in the insect immune system, and using it in one place means it can't be used in another. For the dog, having long legs for running can make it harder to keep the cold at bay, since more heat is lost from narrow limbs than from wider ones. These often conflicting needs mean automatic trade-offs in every system, so that each may be good enough but is rarely if ever perfect. Neither we nor any other species have ever been a seamless match with the environment. Instead, our adaptation is more like a broken zipper, with some teeth that align and others that gape apart. Except that it looks broken only to our unrealistically perfectionist eyes—eyes that themselves contain oddly looped vessels as a holdover from their past.
​

If you're going to critique evolution, you would do well to have some understanding of it.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Hi, guy living in Germany here. Our general practitioners actually study medicine, just like American general practitioners. I could turn to literally any doctor in a 30-mile radius and ask them what they thought of your ideas, and get a unified "what a load of nonsense".

Just for the record, to those who wrote the following, you were being sarcastic....correct?

Thank you for opening up my mind!

For years I had placed my faith in hundreds of peer-reviewed and tightly controlled trials and studies showing the safety and efficacy of these drugs. I spent years of my life studying them - all in vain!

I knew warfarin was used as rat poison, but I thought it prevented embolic phenomena in those at risk. I was so blind!
I though Solanum was merely the family name of potatoes and Tomatoes or inert flowers. I failed to realise their strong analgesic potential.

Here I thought that any tabacco was carginogenic and increased cardiovascular risk. Luckily I was set right. I can't wait to spread the gospel, I mean its not like people increase their risk of strokes, MIs etc. when they stop their prescribed medications.

Yes.
Sad.

 

[The Cadet]

Just for the record, to those who wrote the following, you were being sarcastic....correct?

Respectively yes and no. :/