Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 113 (8748 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-22-2017 7:22 PM
399 online now:
Asgara (AdminAsgara), Coyote, CRR, edge, Hyroglyphx, kjsimons, Meddle, Tanypteryx (8 members, 391 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: kmastes01
Post Volume:
Total: 808,793 Year: 13,399/21,208 Month: 2,881/3,605 Week: 223/933 Day: 119/104 Hour: 0/6

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
567Next
Author Topic:   Ancient Biblical ritual saves MILLIONS of lives
caffeine
Member
Posts: 1261
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008
Member Rating: 5.4


(1)
Message 46 of 98 (720677)
02-26-2014 9:28 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Stile
02-25-2014 10:30 AM


Re: Living in the past
Made sense then... not so much now.

I think you have this completely backwards, if you think about it for a minute.

Circumcision today, when performed in a modern medical facility, is much safer than it has been for people throughout history. The risk of infection in the days before proper antibiotics would of course have been much higher - significantly higher than the risk of HIV, which did not yet exist. This is easily illustrated by a study conducted in Kenya, Lesotho and Tanzania. While studies have suggested that circumcision reduces HIV rates in sexually active heterosexual men, this one looked at children and virgins, and found that they were more likely to have HIV if circumcised than if not, because of the risk of disease transmission as part of the operation, particularly in places where it's done in unhygienic conditions.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Stile, posted 02-25-2014 10:30 AM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Stile, posted 02-26-2014 2:45 PM caffeine has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11346
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 47 of 98 (720678)
02-26-2014 9:59 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Eliyahu
02-25-2014 11:38 PM


Coincedence or not, it is a fact that that Biblical ritual saves millions of lives and prevents untold human suffering.

But you could just as accurately say that a ritual that has come to save millions of lives had become a Biblical ritual.

People were doing circumcisions before the Bible was written. It wasn't invented by the Bible.

And that is not the only Biblical law that turns out to be very benificial.

Sure, because things that were beneficial became Biblical law.

If you keep on stacking "coincidence" on "coincicence", then it becomes very silly to keep on believing in coincidence.

You're the pot calling the kettle black.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Eliyahu, posted 02-25-2014 11:38 PM Eliyahu has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Eliyahu, posted 02-28-2014 12:49 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 2742
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 48 of 98 (720691)
02-26-2014 2:28 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Faith
02-26-2014 3:35 AM


This isn't the thread for it but I am curious how the Jesus Freaks managed to make your life so miserable that you keep bringing them up at every opportunity.

That is not what I said. What I said was (bold added):
DWise1 writes:

Much more so since the "Jesus Freak Movement" hit around 1970 which then did their utmost to make the 1970's a living hell for the normals.


So I wasn't talking so much about myself as I was for everybody else who wasn't a fundamentalist Christian. I was more of a "fellow traveller", to borrow a term from McCarthyism. Seven years before the Jesus Freaks started appearing centered around Chuck Smith's Calvary Chapel in Costa Mesa, I had left Christianity because I had started reading the Bible and found that I just could not believe what I was reading. When members of my friend's family joined Calvary, I tagged along and learned their teachings, which only proved to me that I had made the right choice seven years prior. This gave me an understanding of the fundamentalists behavior and motivations and made me more sympathetic towards them. While many people will want to have nothing to do with fundamentalists, many of my friends have been fundamentalists.

Perhaps you've noticed how much and loudly conservative/evangelical/fundamentalist/etc Christians complain bitterly that everybody hates them and are persecuting them? Why should that be? Well, they're just reaping what they had sown decades before.

The sudden growth of fundamentalist churches circa 1970 was from the mass conversion of both freaks (AKA "hippies") and non-freaks (AKA "straights", which had a different meaning then). Their theology was heavily dispensationalist and obsessed over the end times, which would happen any day now (err, back then). These new converts were very strongly motivated to convert others and were extremely aggressive. Their churches trained them in proselytizing techniques and strategies and organized them into street proselytizing teams. At times, you couldn't walk down the street without being accosted by proselytizing fundamentalists who wouldn't take "no" for an answer, but would aggressively persist in-your-face using hard-sell tactics, metaphorically trying to bludgeon you senseless with their Bibles. Normals hated that with a passion that they still feel decades later.

Part of the strategy was the formation of Christian clubs on school campuses. At one job in 1990, my boss was a second-generation fundamentalist, which meant that he had learned to behave normally, since he was from an earlier generation than the "Jesus Freaks". His son, a third-generation fundamentalist, left for college back in Illinois. When he returned and worked for us during semester break, he described the problems he had had meeting people there. When I suggested that he might find fellowship in one of the Christian clubs on campus, he immediately and strongly nixed that idea. He had already tried that, but all that the clubs did was to devise plans for converting the rest of the student body. All those Christian clubs were were proselytizing shock troop units. And, needless to say, the rest of the student body grew to hate those Christians for their tactics and they still remember those experiences decades later.

Many families also suffered severe problems when family members converted. The new convert would then try to convert the rest of the family using the same aggressive hard-sell tactics that had been used on him. That is what happened when my wife's brother converted and it nearly tore that family apart. Finally, my in-laws had to absolutely forbid any discussion of religion and refused to allow my brother-in-law to visit until he would comply. Other families were not as fortunate. Even worse was when a spouse would convert and their spouse resisted conversion -- that's the "double yoke" described in 2 Corinthians 6 that a Christian must avoid. How many marriages did that destroy? I am aware of how, when Dan Barker deconverted, the church leaders urged his wife to leave him, which she did.

And then there's the rise of the Radical Religious Right circa 1980 and the direct danger it and its descendant forms have and continue to present to religious liberty and civil rights. They declared culture war against the rest of society, a fact that is not lost on the rest of us. And, of course, the fundamentalist Christian attacks on science education with which this forum deals.

Christians are reaping what they had sown since 1970. Eleven years ago when my wife and I were wanting to learn Lindy Hop, the teacher I had found was hosting a big Memorial Day dance for the singles ministry of two local Baptist mega-churches, so I took my wife so she could be introduced to it. During the drive there and especially when we got out of the car and walked through the parking lot, she was complaining more and more bitterly about having to around so many Christians, that all they would try to do would be to convert us, and what she would do if they even began to think of trying that on her! She is not the only one to have formed that opinion of and reaction to Christians.

Now, the thing about proselytizing is that it is inherently extremely offensive. Its goal is to attack someone else's faith and beliefs for the expressed purpose of completely destroying that other person's faith in order to replace it with your own religion. And like the Borg and Cybermen, the proselytizer cannot understand why a normal person would not welcome being assimilated but rather would fight against such a fate. But certainly, nobody likes having someone attack his beliefs and try to destroy his faith (please review that Pharisee teaching, the Golden Rule). And that is exactly what the Jesus Freaks and their colleagues and the subsequent generations of aggressive proselytizers did. And that is why normals hate them so much, even many decades after those experiences.

In The Andromeda Strain, Michael Crichton MD used as a plot resolution the fact that highly virulent virii will evolve into less virulent forms, since the less effective a virus is at killing its host, the more hosts it can infect. Viewing Calvary Chapel in Costa Mesa we see that its members have become less virulent as a whole. They started out in 1970 all young, mostly single, fervently believing in the imminent arrival of the End Times. They were highly virulent proselytizers and did the most to turn others against them. From what I heard, that End Times fever reached a high point through an "ex-Satanist" con-man who really whipped them up into a lather, and after that the fervor diminished somewhat. Also, as has happened over and over again throughout the long, long history of the End of the World, the End never came and these people married, had families, got careers, and a life. And now grandchildren as well. As a result, they are much less virulent than they used to be. Almost becoming normal. But they are still living with the consequences of their earlier actions, even though they're oblivious to that fact.

There it is in a nutshell.

Edited by dwise1, : "would welcome" should have been "would not welcome"


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Faith, posted 02-26-2014 3:35 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Stile
Member
Posts: 2870
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 49 of 98 (720693)
02-26-2014 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by caffeine
02-26-2014 9:28 AM


Re: Living in the past
caffeine writes:

I think you have this completely backwards, if you think about it for a minute.

No, I meant it the way it's written. I think you and I are talking about two different ideas, though.

Circumcision today, when performed in a modern medical facility, is much safer than it has been for people throughout history. The risk of infection in the days before proper antibiotics would of course have been much higher - significantly higher than the risk of HIV, which did not yet exist.

You seem to be comparing the deaths directly related by the surgery of circumcision itself vs. the deaths from HIV alone.
With this idea, I agree with your point.

But that's not the idea I was talking about.

In the "old times" I was talking about, I'm not only worried about "deaths from HIV" for those who were uncircumcised.
I was speaking much more about the deaths just from general uncleanliness for those who were uncircumcised. Which includes a lot more deaths. Especially without modern cleaning practices.

I do agree that modern medicine has drastically reduced the risk of infection with regards to circumcision.
But it is grossly outweighed by the risk of disease (all disease, not just HIV) for the uncircumcised if you take away modern cleaning practices (washing every day...).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by caffeine, posted 02-26-2014 9:28 AM caffeine has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by caffeine, posted 02-28-2014 4:42 AM Stile has acknowledged this reply

    
Eliyahu
Member (Idle past 215 days)
Posts: 286
From: Judah
Joined: 07-23-2013


Message 50 of 98 (720715)
02-27-2014 12:39 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Theodoric
02-25-2014 10:00 AM


evidently this perfect god dude screwed up.

Bs'd

No, the humans He created and whom He gave free will, they screwed up.



"The only reality is mind and observations."

Richard Conn Henry, professor Johns Hopkin department of physics

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Theodoric, posted 02-25-2014 10:00 AM Theodoric has not yet responded

    
Eliyahu
Member (Idle past 215 days)
Posts: 286
From: Judah
Joined: 07-23-2013


Message 51 of 98 (720716)
02-27-2014 2:11 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by frako
02-26-2014 8:31 AM


Yea but you forgot the best ritual to cure leprosy, it really works and these scientists just laugh at the bible how dare they.

Leviticus 14:1-57

I wonder why doctors don just preform this ritual to heal the lepers why do they insist on giving them the unholy dapsone and rifampicin cures. And it takes 6 months boy are scientist idiots for not listening to the bible.

Bs'd

We're not talking about leprosy, but about circumcision, which has recently saved millions of lives, and prevented untold human suffering, and is still saving lives on a mega scale right now.

But let's talk the Torah laws on leprosy.

Leviticus says that a leper must be quarantined: “ But if the priest examines it and there is no white hair in the spot and if it is not more than skin deep and has faded, then the priest is to isolate them for seven days.” Lev 13:26

When they were positively identified as being lepers, they had to live outside the camp, without contact with normal society: “Anyone with such a defiling disease must wear torn clothes, let their hair be unkempt, cover the lower part of their face and cry out, ‘Unclean! Unclean!’ 46 As long as they have the disease they remain unclean. They must live alone; they must live outside the camp.” Ibid

So lepers were cast out of society. That was not the case in other nations/peoples. Even in 1856 in Norway, there were still living 2,858 lepers along the North Sea coast, especially around the city of Bergen. They made a living by selling their products on the market, and traveling along the houses as peddlers, selling their stuff, and spreading their disease. When the government opened special clinics for them and isolated them, their numbers started to dwindle. When in 1891 they were forced to live in total isolation, there was great protest and riots against that decision, but their numbers went down again. In 1930, before medication was developed against leprosy, their numbers had gone down to only 2% of their original numbers. A fifty fold reduction in just 80 years, because at last, they decided to do what was written in the Torah 3300 years ago.

So yes, the laws of the Torah are life savers.

And not only against leprosy. In the dark Middle Ages the black death wiped out between one fourth and one third of the world population. In those days there was in the Jewish ghetto a doctor, Balavignus. Because of his Torah knowledge he concluded that the unhygienic circumstances in the city were the cause of the plague. In 1348 he ordered the whole Jewish neighborhood too be cleansed and garbage to be burned. He did everything what is demanded by the ritual purity laws of Leviticus. Because of that, the rats with their flees who passed on the plague bacillus, left the Jewish quarters, and moved on to the Gentile neighborhoods, because by the Jews there was nothing more to get for them. Then in the Jewish quarter the deaths from the black death were only 5% of those in Gentile neighborhoods. The Gentiles soon saw the difference, but in stead of copying the Jewish laws, they accused Balavignus of being one of the main suspects of spreading the plague in Europe.

So you might now understand why no scientist is laughing at the Bible. In fact, a German historian of medicine and professor at the University of Leipzig, Karl Sudhoff, (1853-1938) wrote about those laws: “The thirteenth and fourteenth chapter of Leviticus are important documents which deserve to be written in shining gold, because they form the basis of the modern prophylaxis against contagious diseases.
.
.
.

Amen and HalleluJah!!
.
.
.


"The only reality is mind and observations."

Richard Conn Henry, professor Johns Hopkin department of physics

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by frako, posted 02-26-2014 8:31 AM frako has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by frako, posted 02-27-2014 6:04 AM Eliyahu has responded
 Message 53 by Coragyps, posted 02-27-2014 9:45 AM Eliyahu has not yet responded

    
frako
Member
Posts: 2694
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010
Member Rating: 2.1


(2)
Message 52 of 98 (720726)
02-27-2014 6:04 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Eliyahu
02-27-2014 2:11 AM


We're not talking about leprosy, but about circumcision, which has recently saved millions of lives, and prevented untold human suffering, and is still saving lives on a mega scale right now.

Well you put this argument forward as a means to lend support to the bible i just showed you that there are pointless rituals there too. And even a blind chicken finds a grain of corn every now and then.

Leviticus says that a leper must be quarantined: “ But if the priest examines it and there is no white hair in the spot and if it is not more than skin deep and has faded, then the priest is to isolate them for seven days.” Lev 13:26

Yea because lepers are icky icky, but sadly for you not contagious, you can catch it if you come in to REPEATED contact with nose and mouth droplets of an infected individual.

so yeah:

When they were positively identified as being lepers, they had to live outside the camp, without contact with normal society: “Anyone with such a defiling disease must wear torn clothes, let their hair be unkempt, cover the lower part of their face and cry out, ‘Unclean! Unclean!’ 46 As long as they have the disease they remain unclean. They must live alone; they must live outside the camp.” Ibid

Thats does not sound very nice now does it

So lepers were cast out of society. That was not the case in other nations/peoples. Even in 1856 in Norway, there were still living 2,858 lepers along the North Sea coast, especially around the city of Bergen. They made a living by selling their products on the market, and traveling along the houses as peddlers, selling their stuff, and spreading their disease. When the government opened special clinics for them and isolated them, their numbers started to dwindle. When in 1891 they were forced to live in total isolation, there was great protest and riots against that decision, but their numbers went down again. In 1930, before medication was developed against leprosy, their numbers had gone down to only 2% of their original numbers. A fifty fold reduction in just 80 years, because at last, they decided to do what was written in the Torah 3300 years ago.

If only your god was a bit nicer and said lepers need to cover their nose and mouth with a cloth so many people wouldn't have to be shunned.

And not only against leprosy. In the dark Middle Ages the black death wiped out between one fourth and one third of the world population. In those days there was in the Jewish ghetto a doctor, Balavignus. Because of his Torah knowledge he concluded that the unhygienic circumstances in the city were the cause of the plague. In 1348 he ordered the whole Jewish neighborhood too be cleansed and garbage to be burned. He did everything what is demanded by the ritual purity laws of Leviticus. Because of that, the rats with their flees who passed on the plague bacillus, left the Jewish quarters, and moved on to the Gentile neighborhoods, because by the Jews there was nothing more to get for them. Then in the Jewish quarter the deaths from the black death were only 5% of those in Gentile neighborhoods. The Gentiles soon saw the difference, but in stead of copying the Jewish laws, they accused Balavignus of being one of the main suspects of spreading the plague in Europe.

Jewsi deaths where always lower for the plague then Christians, simply because Jews kept their food more secure from rats.

So you might now understand why no scientist is laughing at the Bible. In fact, a German historian of medicine and professor at the University of Leipzig, Karl Sudhoff, (1853-1938) wrote about those laws: “The thirteenth and fourteenth chapter of Leviticus are important documents which deserve to be written in shining gold, because they form the basis of the modern prophylaxis against contagious diseases.”

To bad leprosy isn't contagious.


Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand

What are the Christians gonna do to me ..... Forgive me, good luck with that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Eliyahu, posted 02-27-2014 2:11 AM Eliyahu has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Eliyahu, posted 02-28-2014 2:07 AM frako has responded

    
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5268
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 53 of 98 (720736)
02-27-2014 9:45 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Eliyahu
02-27-2014 2:11 AM


Tell us about houses that catch leprosy, Eliyahu.

"The Christian church, in its attitude toward science, shows the mind of a more or less enlightened man of the Thirteenth Century. It no longer believes that the earth is flat, but it is still convinced that prayer can cure after medicine fails." H L Mencken

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Eliyahu, posted 02-27-2014 2:11 AM Eliyahu has not yet responded

    
Eliyahu
Member (Idle past 215 days)
Posts: 286
From: Judah
Joined: 07-23-2013


Message 54 of 98 (720860)
02-28-2014 12:49 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by New Cat's Eye
02-26-2014 9:59 AM


But you could just as accurately say that a ritual that has come to save millions of lives had become a Biblical ritual.

Bs'd

The only problem is that all evidence for that assumption is lacking.

Another problem is that the Biblical laws are unique for the Bible. If you compare the Biblical laws with the contemporary pagan laws, then you see a tremendous difference.

The Biblical laws are enormous life savers. The pagan medical remedies would help you sooner into you grave.

People were doing circumcisions before the Bible was written. It wasn't invented by the Bible.

No other holy book or even medical book prescribes circumcision.

Only Egypt had it for a while, because the Israelites lived for centuries in Egypt, and forced circumcision upon the Egyptians.

And that is not the only Biblical law that turns out to be very benificial.

Sure, because things that were beneficial became Biblical law.

At least we agree on the fact that the Biblical laws are very beneficial .

And why did the Jews figure out what was very beneficial, like circumcision on the eight day, and could no other culture figure out what was so beneficial?

Divine intervention.



"The only reality is mind and observations."

Richard Conn Henry, professor Johns Hopkin department of physics

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-26-2014 9:59 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Coyote, posted 02-28-2014 12:52 AM Eliyahu has responded
 Message 67 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-28-2014 9:53 AM Eliyahu has responded

    
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5778
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 55 of 98 (720861)
02-28-2014 12:52 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by Eliyahu
02-28-2014 12:49 AM


And why did the Jews figure out what was very beneficial, like circumcision on the eight day, and could no other culture figure out what was so beneficial?

Maybe many other cultures, not living in desert areas, practiced better hygiene?

Native Americans, for example, used the sweat lodge on a daily basis.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

"Multiculturalism" does not include the American culture. That is what it is against.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Eliyahu, posted 02-28-2014 12:49 AM Eliyahu has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Eliyahu, posted 02-28-2014 2:09 AM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Eliyahu
Member (Idle past 215 days)
Posts: 286
From: Judah
Joined: 07-23-2013


(1)
Message 56 of 98 (720867)
02-28-2014 2:07 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by frako
02-27-2014 6:04 AM


Leviticus says that a leper must be quarantined: “ But if the priest examines it and there is no white hair in the spot and if it is not more than skin deep and has faded, then the priest is to isolate them for seven days.” Lev 13:26

Yea because lepers are icky icky, but sadly for you not contagious, you can catch it if you come in to REPEATED contact with nose and mouth droplets of an infected individual.

And that's what is called "contagious".

so yeah:
When they were positively identified as being lepers, they had to live outside the camp, without contact with normal society: “Anyone with such a defiling disease must wear torn clothes, let their hair be unkempt, cover the lower part of their face and cry out, ‘Unclean! Unclean!’ 46 As long as they have the disease they remain unclean. They must live alone; they must live outside the camp.” Ibid

Thats does not sound very nice now does it

You think it would have been nicer to let a lot of other people be infected??

So lepers were cast out of society. That was not the case in other nations/peoples. Even in 1856 in Norway, there were still living 2,858 lepers along the North Sea coast, especially around the city of Bergen. They made a living by selling their products on the market, and traveling along the houses as peddlers, selling their stuff, and spreading their disease. When the government opened special clinics for them and isolated them, their numbers started to dwindle. When in 1891 they were forced to live in total isolation, there was great protest and riots against that decision, but their numbers went down again. In 1930, before medication was developed against leprosy, their numbers had gone down to only 2% of their original numbers. A fifty fold reduction in just 80 years, because at last, they decided to do what was written in the Torah 3300 years ago.

If only your god was a bit nicer and said lepers need to cover their nose and mouth with a cloth so many people wouldn't have to be shunned.

God did one, and also the other.

The protection of healthy people is the most important.

“Anyone with such a defiling disease must wear torn clothes, let their hair be unkempt, cover the lower part of their face and cry out, ‘Unclean! Unclean!’ 46 As long as they have the disease they remain unclean. They must live alone; they must live outside the camp."
Lev 13:45

And not only against leprosy. In the dark Middle Ages the black death wiped out between one fourth and one third of the world population. In those days there was in the Jewish ghetto a doctor, Balavignus. Because of his Torah knowledge he concluded that the unhygienic circumstances in the city were the cause of the plague. In 1348 he ordered the whole Jewish neighborhood too be cleansed and garbage to be burned. He did everything what is demanded by the ritual purity laws of Leviticus. Because of that, the rats with their flees who passed on the plague bacillus, left the Jewish quarters, and moved on to the Gentile neighborhoods, because by the Jews there was nothing more to get for them. Then in the Jewish quarter the deaths from the black death were only 5% of those in Gentile neighborhoods. The Gentiles soon saw the difference, but in stead of copying the Jewish laws, they accused Balavignus of being one of the main suspects of spreading the plague in Europe.

Jewsi deaths where always lower for the plague then Christians, simply because Jews kept their food more secure from rats.

And because of Biblical quarantine of victims.

So you might now understand why no scientist is laughing at the Bible. In fact, a German historian of medicine and professor at the University of Leipzig, Karl Sudhoff, (1853-1938) wrote about those laws: “The thirteenth and fourteenth chapter of Leviticus are important documents which deserve to be written in shining gold, because they form the basis of the modern prophylaxis against contagious diseases.”

To bad leprosy isn't contagious.

Giving it over to others through saliva and nasal mucus is what is called "contagious".



"The only reality is mind and observations."

Richard Conn Henry, professor Johns Hopkin department of physics

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by frako, posted 02-27-2014 6:04 AM frako has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by frako, posted 02-28-2014 5:56 AM Eliyahu has responded

    
Eliyahu
Member (Idle past 215 days)
Posts: 286
From: Judah
Joined: 07-23-2013


Message 57 of 98 (720868)
02-28-2014 2:09 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Coyote
02-28-2014 12:52 AM


Maybe many other cultures, not living in desert areas, practiced better hygiene?

Bs'd

Look a little into the hygiene standards of Europe in the middle ages. Then you'll know better.



"The only reality is mind and observations."

Richard Conn Henry, professor Johns Hopkin department of physics

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Coyote, posted 02-28-2014 12:52 AM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by frako, posted 02-28-2014 6:08 AM Eliyahu has not yet responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 4630
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 58 of 98 (720876)
02-28-2014 4:17 AM


It seems that in reality, the origins and reasons for the practice of circumcision are many and various.

I draw your eyes to this statement "Darby describes these theories as "conflicting", and states that "the only point of agreement among proponents of the various theories is that promoting good health had nothing to do with it"

The origination of male circumcision is not known with certainty. It has been variously proposed that it began as a religious sacrifice, as a rite of passage marking a boy's entrance into adulthood, as a form of sympathetic magic to ensure virility or fertility, as a means of enhancing sexual pleasure, as an aid to hygiene where regular bathing was impractical, as a means of marking those of higher social status, as a means of humiliating enemies and slaves by symbolic castration, as a means of differentiating a circumcising group from their non-circumcising neighbors, as a means of discouraging masturbation or other socially proscribed sexual behaviors, as a means of removing "excess" pleasure, as a means of increasing a man's attractiveness to women, as a demonstration of one's ability to endure pain, or as a male counterpart to menstruation or the breaking of the hymen, or to copy the rare natural occurrence of a missing foreskin of an important leader, and as a display of disgust of the smegma produced by the foreskin.

It has been suggested that the custom of circumcision gave advantages to tribes that practiced it and thus led to its spread.[1][2][3] Darby describes these theories as "conflicting", and states that "the only point of agreement among proponents of the various theories is that promoting good health had nothing to do with it."[2] Immerman et al. suggest that circumcision causes lowered sexual arousal of pubescent males, and hypothesize that this was a competitive advantage to tribes practising circumcision, leading to its spread.[4] Wilson suggests that circumcision reduces insemination efficiency, reducing a man's capacity for extra-pair fertilizations by impairing sperm competition. Thus, men who display this signal of sexual obedience, may gain social benefits, if married men are selected to offer social trust and investment preferentially to peers who are less threatening to their paternity.[5]

It is possible that circumcision arose independently in different cultures for different reasons.

The oldest documentary evidence for circumcision comes from ancient Egypt.[6] Circumcision was common, although not universal, among ancient Semitic peoples.[7] In the aftermath of the conquests of Alexander the Great, however, Greek dislike of circumcision (they regarded a man as truly "naked" only if his prepuce was retracted) led to a decline in its incidence among many peoples that had previously practiced it.[8]

Circumcision has ancient roots among several ethnic groups in sub-equatorial Africa, and is still performed on adolescent boys to symbolize their transition to warrior status or adulthood.[9]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_male_circumcision

No surprises then, just more special pleading by a fanatic.


Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.

Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


  
caffeine
Member
Posts: 1261
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008
Member Rating: 5.4


Message 59 of 98 (720877)
02-28-2014 4:42 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Stile
02-26-2014 2:45 PM


Re: Living in the past
No, I meant it the way it's written. I think you and I are talking about two different ideas, though.

I know that's what you meant, I was just telling you that you're wrong.

You seem to be comparing the deaths directly related by the surgery of circumcision itself vs. the deaths from HIV alone.
With this idea, I agree with your point.

But that's not the idea I was talking about.

In the "old times" I was talking about, I'm not only worried about "deaths from HIV" for those who were uncircumcised.
I was speaking much more about the deaths just from general uncleanliness for those who were uncircumcised. Which includes a lot more deaths. Especially without modern cleaning practices.

I do agree that modern medicine has drastically reduced the risk of infection with regards to circumcision.
But it is grossly outweighed by the risk of disease (all disease, not just HIV) for the uncircumcised if you take away modern cleaning practices (washing every day...).

I'm not sure from where you're getting your figures for the number of deaths related to infection from surgery and the number of deaths from venereal disease that would have been prevented by circumcision in the ancient world. For obvious reasons, there aren't any, so this can be nothing but speculation.

I'd disagree that washing every day is a modern cleaning practice. Don't look to the appalling hygiene standards that existed in pre-modern Europe and assume this was the standard for the ancient world. Most pre-modern cultures had stricter hygiene standards than this, including those which practiced circumcision. Egyptian culture, in particular, was very fastidious about cleanliness, and Arabic culture also has traditions of ritual washing.

Basic cleanliness was easier in ancient times than sterile operations, so I still doubt circumcision had significant health benefits in the ancient world, even if it may today.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Stile, posted 02-26-2014 2:45 PM Stile has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Eliyahu, posted 02-28-2014 6:37 AM caffeine has responded

  
frako
Member
Posts: 2694
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 60 of 98 (720878)
02-28-2014 5:56 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by Eliyahu
02-28-2014 2:07 AM


And that's what is called "contagious".

Yea but it can be minimized to zero if you just put a cloth over the mouth and nose. No need to shun lepers.

You think it would have been nicer to let a lot of other people be infected??

Nope if god would just say if your a leper tie a rag around your head so that it covers the mouth and nose the problem would be solved. Without shunning people. Making them scream unclean unclean and whatnot.

God did one, and also the other.

The protection of healthy people is the most important.

“Anyone with such a defiling disease must wear torn clothes, let their hair be unkempt, cover the lower part of their face and cry out, ‘Unclean! Unclean!’ 46 As long as they have the disease they remain unclean. They must live alone; they must live outside the camp."
Lev 13:45

Yea so apart from being shunned, they shouldn't groom themselves and cry out unclean. When a simle cloth would solve the problem, they could go in to the camp with it noo one would get infected, they could prepare the food for the entire camp and no one would get infected ....

And because of Biblical quarantine of victims.

Nope it wasn't a quarantine it was shunning, as a quarantine was not needed. They just wanted to make them feel as bad as possible for they must have done something terrible to be cursed by god in that way.

Giving it over to others through saliva and nasal mucus is what is called "contagious".

Yea but wiki says " Often the word can only be understood in context, where it is used to emphasise very infectious, easily transmitted, or especially severe communicable disease"

Its not very infectious, its actually hard to catch it its not one nose droplet and your out kind of infectious. It does not spread trough contact, or air,...

An all knowing all powerful god could have given way better instructions and no one would get sick, and no one would get shunned. How would you feel if you had to live alone on the outskirts of of your town. Hoping that some genorus soul would toss away some scraps in your direction so you may eat this week.


Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand

What are the Christians gonna do to me ..... Forgive me, good luck with that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Eliyahu, posted 02-28-2014 2:07 AM Eliyahu has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Eliyahu, posted 02-28-2014 6:49 AM frako has not yet responded

    
Prev123
4
567Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017