Ancient Biblical ritual saves MILLIONS of lives

would that be during the dark ages, when religion ruled supreme. You try looking a bit earlier during the time of the Roman empire.

Romans loved to bathe, there are Roman baths all over Europe some still standing the way they where some modernised, we have a bunch in my country.

Romans preformed brain surgery, not knowing basic hygiene preforming such operations would be a death sentence, though it wasn't.

they had sewer systems, while in the dark ages they just threw the shit on to the street.

They had public latrines.

Acuaducts bringing water in to houses......

But then came the dark ages when Christianity said, you only need one book, and lets write it in Latin just to be sure the common rabble do sent find out how silly it is.

Bs'd

In the desert water is a precious commodity, so that is not wasted on mundane things like washing everyday.

Even nowadays hygienic practices are in many places not what they are supposed to be:

The proponents of not circumcising nevertheless stress that lifelong penile hygiene is required. This acknowledges that something harmful or unpleasant is happening under the prepuce. Studies of middle class British [172] and Scandanavian [259] schoolboys concluded that penile hygiene, as such, is at best poor and at worst non-existent. Furthermore, Dr Terry Russell, an Australian medical practitioner and circumcision expert states "What man after a night of passion is going to perform penile hygiene before rolling over and snoring the night away (with pathogenic organisms multiplying in the warm moist environment under the prepuce)" [301]. The bacteria start multiplying again immediately after washing and contribute, along with skin secretions, to the whitish film, termed 'smegma', that is found under the foreskin.

Smegma is produced by the foreskin's inner surface and contains neutral lipids, fatty acids, sterol and exfoliated cells. Excretion of smegma increases in adolescence and peaks at age 20-40 years. Whereas initially it is a lubricant having a white or pale yellow color, with time, chemical transformations take place and it becomes mixed with epithelial cells, dirt and micro-organisms; these form aggregates and produce foul odors. The bacteria alone give off an offensive smell and most people consider smegma to be unclean [405]. Men differ in their sensitivity to this smell and some shower several times a day as a result (See section `What men say'). Some uncircumcised men, and/or their partners, find the stench so unpleasant that the foul odor has caused these men to seek a circumcision on this basis alone. Improved penile hygiene is perhaps the major reason for circumcision (82% in one study [251]) and, for most, smegma is regarded as unclean and infected with micro-organisms (88% in the same study [251]). Penile hygiene is often difficult to achieve and attempting a very high degree of hygiene in uncircumcised men can result in new dermatological problems. For mothers and fathers, it is far easier to maintain cleanliness of their son's penis if it is circumcised. If their son is not circumcised the messages are confusing: should they clean under the foreskin or leave it alone?

A survey in London of 150 uncircumcised and 75 circumcised men found 4% of circumcised compared with 26% of uncircumcised men had inferior genital hygiene behavior, i.e., did not always wash the entire penis (the uncircumcised men did not always wash under the foreskin) [249]. Balanitis, phimosis or other foreskin conditions that made foreskin retraction painful might have contributed to their inferior hygiene. The circumcised men also washed the genitals more than once per day (37% vs 19%; P = 0.01).

172. Kalcev B. Circumcision and personal hygiene in school boys. Med
Officer. 1964; 112: 171-173.
249. O'Farrell N, Quigley M, Fox P. Association between the intact foreskin and inferior standards of male genital hygiene behaviour: a cross-sectional study. Int J STD AIDS. 2005; 16: 556-559.
259. Oster J. Further fate of the foreskin: incidence of preputial
adhesions, phimosis and smegma among Danish schoolboys. Arch Dis Child.
1968; 43: 200-203.

Bs'd

Everybody can put on wiki whatever he wants, so that means nothing.

Contagious is contagious, even when it is not very contagious.

Yes He could have. But He choose to give humans free will. And if humans go against Gods laws, they'll get punished. And then they might get sick and shunned.

That's why very few people live in deserts. Ancient Egypt wasn't a desert civilisation. The desert was mostly empty of people, just like today. Ancient Egypt was the river Nile and the coast - places with abundant water amenable to growth of human civillisation.

No it isn't. The Egyptians were doing circumcisions before the Jews were. They've found wall carvings showing it and they've found mummies that were circumcised.

I'm not talking about the contemporaries. I'm talking about the predecessors.

There are Biblical laws that would help you sooner into the grave, too. They've been pointed out to you in this thread.

No, the Jews learned circumcision from the Egyptians. You just want to make your religion out to be better than it is.

Not all of them. Some of them, sure. But that's because if you know something is beneficial, then you might as well write it down.

The Egyptians figured it out before the Jews did.

That's just your wishful thinking. And the evidence shows that if it was divine intervention, then it was for the Egyptians rather than the Jews.

Bs'd

They can, but I take CDC to be a reliable source. Wikipedia of course is not.

So 95% of the people cannot become leppers. Still CDC says: "You may be at risk for the disease if you: live in a country where the disease is widespread. Such countries include: ..... "

So still, in some countries the disease is wide spread, Millions of people suffering and slowly dying because of it.

And also that is either prevented or strongly diminished by the laws of the Torah, given 3300 years ago.

So the laws of the Torah prevent untold human suffering and dying, also in the case of leprosy.

.
.
.

Bs'd

The Israelites lived for centuries among the Egyptians, and they forced circumcision on the Egyptians. So the Egyptians got it from the Jews, not the other way around.

I missed that one. Please give me the post number where I can find those.

Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.

Source of this statement, please?
By that I mean a source beyond, "I said so."

No, the Egyptians were already performing circumcisions before the Jews even got there.

The Israelites were the underclass in that society. Oftentimes being part of the slave labor pool. Exactly how did they force any procedure onto the overlords? If they had any sway in that society, Exodus would not have needed to occur.

Additionally, the earliest mention of any Jewish type faith or people was no earlier than 1500 BCE. Egypt predates that by over 1000 years or more. So you got your timelines mixed up.

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

Main excerpt:

quote:

---

Sixth Dynasty (2345–2181 BC) tomb artwork in Egypt has been thought to be the oldest documentary evidence of circumcision, the most ancient depiction being a bas-relief from the necropolis at Saqqara (ca. 2400 BC) with the inscriptions reading: "The ointment is to make it acceptable." and "Hold him so that he does not fall". In the oldest written account, by an Egyptian named Uha, in the 23rd century BC, he describes a mass circumcision and boasts of his ability to stoically endure the pain: "When I was circumcised, together with one hundred and twenty men...there was none thereof who hit out, there was none thereof who was hit, and there was none thereof who scratched and there was none thereof who was scratched."

---

So if earliest known Hebrew and Jewish faith occurs no earlier than 1500 BCE and earliest known circumcision in Egypt dates to 2300 BCE, than it is impossible for the Jews to have taught or in any way influenced this procedure onto the Egyptians.