I was citing a cultured Roman resident who resisted the empire for 60 years without change, enough to understand its view on pharmaceuticals. The Bible is not monolithic, learn history. And nobody has come up with a better explanation for how Horeb could have rumbled with words that are so sublime as to be still engraved on government halls today.
Good one...well except for all of the laws that existed way before. Besides that, fully half of them are about God being a jealous god and making sure people know that, and of those left, only two are anything that we actually have any laws covering, theft and murder.
Tell me again why they should be posted all over schools and public buildings when they don't even apply to every United States Citizen?
One Roman resident is your only source? Good Science,,,,
Do you wish to debate? I insist on having commitment to truth pursuit and use of straightforward binary propositions in that case.
Yeah, Hammurabi is sublime too (he's about the only one that qualifies for "all the laws before"), but somehow Moses got the cut and Hammurabi mostly didn't.
Yeah, a half-half balance between responsibility toward man and toward the holistic intelligence of the cosmos known as God is an excellent Self-Other paradigm. The cosmos must be upheld as unique and not divergent for any basic philosophy or theology to succeed, so its representative (Yahweh) would be naturally "jealous". (You could go from there into the ordinary atheist tropes about misunderstanding the cultural context of certain specific laws, but I'd rather you did that at c/Atheist and pinged me, so that we wouldn't be derailing u/LightBringerFlex.)
Yeah, the principles of respect for authority, regulation of marriage, and true testimony are enshrined through American and most other laws. If you want to nitpick about coveting, that one is a necessary demonstration that the internal (which is not generally covered by law, Mosaic or not) must still be cultivated as part of getting the external right.
If you object to how our government posts them, I suggest you take it up with them where they've discussed the matter in great detail, the Supreme Court. At risk of misquoting them, their position appears to be that upholding public morality for every citizen and resident is a proper function of a state that guarantees freedom of religion, and this is rightly done by recognizing the greater influence that some methods of upholding morality have historically had within our nation.
You brought up Horeb, so it's on you to advance discussion rather than to snark in AI echoes.
Getting back to OP, I was merely responding to OP by citing a supportive source and implying that the Biblical authority, such as it is, is a strong argument against the philosophy of pharmacy as a whole. For people who discount that authority, it would be a simple matter to cite recent science, starting with the person appointed to regulate that, Bobby Kennedy, and going back through such names as Kary Mullis and Linus Pauling. Since you have not expressed a single position relevant to OP, but were only triggered by a citation supportive of it to go on a tangent, I repeat that if you want to debate something then indicate your willingness to pursue truth wherever it leads and to select a meaningful binary proposition to see if I disagree.
φαρμακεία pharmakeía, far-mak-i'-ah; from G5332; medication ("pharmacy"), i.e. (by extension) magic (literally or figuratively):—sorcery, witchcraft.
Why would anyone work in pharmacy given what the Bible says about it?
Amen
Because the bible was written by bronze age goatherders trying to understand why Mt. Horeb rumbled....
I was citing a cultured Roman resident who resisted the empire for 60 years without change, enough to understand its view on pharmaceuticals. The Bible is not monolithic, learn history. And nobody has come up with a better explanation for how Horeb could have rumbled with words that are so sublime as to be still engraved on government halls today.
Good one...well except for all of the laws that existed way before. Besides that, fully half of them are about God being a jealous god and making sure people know that, and of those left, only two are anything that we actually have any laws covering, theft and murder.
Tell me again why they should be posted all over schools and public buildings when they don't even apply to every United States Citizen?
One Roman resident is your only source? Good Science,,,,
Do you wish to debate? I insist on having commitment to truth pursuit and use of straightforward binary propositions in that case.
Yeah, Hammurabi is sublime too (he's about the only one that qualifies for "all the laws before"), but somehow Moses got the cut and Hammurabi mostly didn't.
Yeah, a half-half balance between responsibility toward man and toward the holistic intelligence of the cosmos known as God is an excellent Self-Other paradigm. The cosmos must be upheld as unique and not divergent for any basic philosophy or theology to succeed, so its representative (Yahweh) would be naturally "jealous". (You could go from there into the ordinary atheist tropes about misunderstanding the cultural context of certain specific laws, but I'd rather you did that at c/Atheist and pinged me, so that we wouldn't be derailing u/LightBringerFlex.)
Yeah, the principles of respect for authority, regulation of marriage, and true testimony are enshrined through American and most other laws. If you want to nitpick about coveting, that one is a necessary demonstration that the internal (which is not generally covered by law, Mosaic or not) must still be cultivated as part of getting the external right.
If you object to how our government posts them, I suggest you take it up with them where they've discussed the matter in great detail, the Supreme Court. At risk of misquoting them, their position appears to be that upholding public morality for every citizen and resident is a proper function of a state that guarantees freedom of religion, and this is rightly done by recognizing the greater influence that some methods of upholding morality have historically had within our nation.
You brought up Horeb, so it's on you to advance discussion rather than to snark in AI echoes.
Getting back to OP, I was merely responding to OP by citing a supportive source and implying that the Biblical authority, such as it is, is a strong argument against the philosophy of pharmacy as a whole. For people who discount that authority, it would be a simple matter to cite recent science, starting with the person appointed to regulate that, Bobby Kennedy, and going back through such names as Kary Mullis and Linus Pauling. Since you have not expressed a single position relevant to OP, but were only triggered by a citation supportive of it to go on a tangent, I repeat that if you want to debate something then indicate your willingness to pursue truth wherever it leads and to select a meaningful binary proposition to see if I disagree.