Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Mosaic Law food laws show evidence of divine knowledge? Law advanced other ways?
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 16 of 90 (110463)
05-25-2004 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by kendemyer
05-25-2004 4:37 PM


Re: To: brian and purpledawn
Hi,
I got it, I am still catching up with a backlog of e-mails, I will reply at the weekend.
Welcome back.
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by kendemyer, posted 05-25-2004 4:37 PM kendemyer has not replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 17 of 90 (110464)
05-25-2004 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Brian
05-25-2004 4:16 PM


Re: A Lot To Digest
quote:
May the Lord have mercy on your soul.
You know not what you do
Not sure of your point.

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Brian, posted 05-25-2004 4:16 PM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Brian, posted 05-25-2004 5:31 PM purpledawn has not replied

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1393 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 18 of 90 (110466)
05-25-2004 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by kendemyer
05-24-2004 11:13 PM


Just a Little Off the Top
quote:
NEXT LET US TAKE A LOOK AT CIRCUMCISION:
The supposed miraculous benefits of circumcision have never been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the medical community. When the New England Journal of Medicine printed an article in 2002 describing a study which supposedly proved the benefits of the procedure, they not only received a ton of mail from dissenting physicians, but also a letter from the very authors of the study making it clear the NEJM had overstated the case.
In the December 1978 issue of the American Journal of Diseases of Children, Dr. Sydney S. Gellis stated that "It is an uncontestable fact at this point that there are more deaths from complications of circumcision than from cancer of the penis."
quote:
Some would say that the benefits of circumcision shows (sic) design flaws. Of course, to show that there were design flaws you must show that cancer and vendereal (sic) disease, and infections were not a result of a fall in the Garden of Eden). I do not think this objection can be sustained.
And you can't show that I don't have an invisible friend sitting next to me. Only I don't use my imaginary buddy to promote the mutilation of newborns.
regards,
Esteban Hambre

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by kendemyer, posted 05-24-2004 11:13 PM kendemyer has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 19 of 90 (110471)
05-25-2004 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by purpledawn
05-25-2004 4:52 PM


Re: A Lot To Digest
Not sure of your point
Please bear with me for a week, you'll get the point.
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by purpledawn, posted 05-25-2004 4:52 PM purpledawn has not replied

  
kendemyer
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 90 (110485)
05-25-2004 6:17 PM


to: ALL
TO: ALL
I wish to addres 3 things:
1) I know there is not 100% consensus regarding circumcision. I do believe, however, that circumcision while not medically necessary does have its advantages and that the pros outweigh the cons. And since I am not afraid of both positions material by any means I offer both pro and con sites for the readers to examine and make their own determination:
PRO CIRCUMCISION:
http://www.circumstitions.com/Morris.html
AGAINST CIRCUMCISION:
Error 404 - Not Found
2) I wish to reiterate that I would like an informed scientist to review the Dr. Macht study regarding the clean and unclean animals in regards to their toxicities.
3) I WISH TO OFFER TWO RETRACTINGS
I like to have solid corroborated information in my material. I also make efforts to strain out material that does not have enough corroboration.
1) I have decided to retract the material below:
"A United States Department of Agriculture pamphlet stated that "In a series of 24 cases of trichinosis reported recently, 22 were said to have resulted from ‘cooked pork.’"
There is no way to corroborate such a vaguely cited reference. I also do not like the site in general that uses this vaguely cited reference. For example, they have bad Biblical exegesis.
2) I retract:
Also consider this info:
"The indiscriminate eating patterns of omnivores like pigs make them disease carriers. Swine are known to carry up to 200 diseases, including trichinella spiralis, microscopic transparent worms so small that only trained inspectors using high-powered microscopes can detect their existence."
taken from: http://www.letsbewellinc.com/s/p/BeyondGarden.html
I simply cannot corroborate the information regarding the 200 diseases. I think the Macht data published by John Hopkins regarding swine is far more
compelling.
I think this site is far more compelling regarding swine diseases:
"This web site page lists over 140 pig, hog and swine diseases / conditions in alphabetical order. Simply select the pig disease of choice from the list below"
see: | The Poultry Site
Sincerely,
Ken

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by MrHambre, posted 05-27-2004 3:02 PM kendemyer has not replied
 Message 88 by Trae, posted 06-26-2004 2:30 AM kendemyer has not replied

  
kendemyer
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 90 (110493)
05-25-2004 6:48 PM


re: sausage surgery
I wish to add some information.
It would seem as if the rabbi's do an excellent job in their cicumcisions:
I offer:
"Skilled circumcisers generally perform the procedure in less than five minutes. (In my opinion, the operation should never last more than 10 minutes.) True adepts, including religious circumcisers (in Judaism, called mohels), generally perform the procedure in less than 2 minutes. When it is performed properly, the operation is simple, safe, and brief."
taken from: WordPress › Error
Here are more details regarding the pros and cons of circumcision:
Is Circumcision Healthy? Yes
by Dr. Edgar J. Schoen
American Council on Science and Health, Contents: Volume 9 Number 4 (1998)
"Circumcision is like a substantial and well-secured annuity; every year of life you draw the benefits. Parents cannot make a better paying investment for their little boys." An 1891 book on the medical aspects of neonatal (newborn) circumcision included this statement by Dr. P. C. Remondino, a prominent California physician of the era. Now, over a century later, a burgeoning body of peer-reviewed reports in the scientific literature confirms that circumcision is an important preventive health measure.
That circumcision is protective against penile cancer and local infection (balanoposthitis) has long been known. Remondino was also aware that uncircumcised men have a higher likelihood of contracting sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), particularly syphilis and chancroid, than have circumcised men. During World War II many U.S. recruits were circumcised to protect them against balanoposthitis. Such infection was a significant cause of active-duty loss among troops, particularly in the North African campaign (because of the combination of sand and poor hygiene). Military medics also felt that circumcision helped prevent STDs. In the past decade published studies have shown that the presence of a foreskin increases the risk of urinary tract infections (UTIs), which are most dangerous during infancy, and the risk of HIV infection.
The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) 1989 Task Force on Circumcision, which I chaired, was aware of the work of U.S. Army neonatologist Thomas Wiswell. Using the armed-forces database Wiswell had shown that significant UTIs were 10 to 20 times more common in uncircumcised infants than in circumcised infants. But the AAP Task Force felt that this finding remained to be proved. Since then, nine major published studies have substantiated that neonatal circumcision prevents serious UTIs in the first year of life. Moreover, studies have shown that uncircumcised Australian preschool boys and uncircumcised young men had a higher risk of UTI than their circumcised peers.
The mechanism by which the foreskin predisposes to UTI has been well described. Serious UTIs are caused by specific intestinal bacteria (particularly by a group called "fimbriated E. coli"). Electron micrography has shown that these tentacled germs have a strong tendency to stick to the moist, mucous underside of the foreskin. From this undersurface they move toward the tip of the penis, enter the urethra (the canal within the penis), and ascend the urinary tract. The resulting infection is most dangerous in the first year of life, when it can lead to scarring of the kidneys and can spread to the bloodstream, causing a potentially deadly generalized infection.
Tulane University urologist James Roberts, who helped identify the mechanism of UTIs in uncircumcised boys, has said that repeated, symptomless (continued on page 26) UTIs in uncircumcised infants may, later in their lives, result in unexplained hypertension and diminishment of kidney function. But convincing long-term evidence of such results is lacking.
In the late 1980s studies from Nairobi, Kenya, first showed a link between the foreskin and HIV infection. According to reports of these studies published in 1989:
Two factors increase the risk of HIV infection in heterosexual men exposed to HIV-infected female prostitutes: (1) a sore on the penis due to an STD (usually syphilis or chancroid), and (2) the presence of a foreskin.
Compared with circumcised men, uncircumcised men had 3 to 4 times the risk of becoming HIV-positive, and uncircumcised men with a penile sore had 7 times the risk.
Several explanations have been proposed for the increase in risk. In the case of ulcerating STDs (e.g., syphilis and chancroid), HIV can enter through the open sore. In uncircumcised men the virus can enter through sexually induced tears in the foreskin. And there is evidence that special cells (Langerhans cells) in the foreskin facilitate HIV adherence.
In an important survey based on 22 epidemiological studies from 10 countries, a group led by Dr. David Moses of the University of Manitoba found that uncircumcised men had, on average, 4 times the risk of HIV infection compared to circumcised men. Most of the studies that served as the basis of Moses's survey had been conducted in African countries and other parts of the Third World, where AIDS is chiefly a heterosexual disease. But according to a report from Seattle, Washington, homosexual men are likewise at higher risk if they are uncircumcised.
Sub-Saharan Africa's "AIDS belt," which includes most East African countries, is home to only 2 percent of the world's population but has half the world's 16 million HIV cases. In the Third World, the primary transmitters of HIV are long-distance truck drivers who have, outside their villages, contracted the disease from prostitutes. Circumcision of men at high risk of HIV infection has been proposed to stem the raging AIDS epidemic in sub-Saharan Africa. Recently, scientists John and Pat Caldwell studied the factors in this epidemic. In a detailed article published in 1996 in Scientific American, the Caldwells concluded that lack of male circumcision was the one factor that correlated with rampant HIV transmission.
In India and other parts of Asia, HIV infection is becoming epidemic as a heterosexual disease transmitted by cross-country truck drivers. A recent New England Journal of Medicine editorial on this imminent epidemic stated that the spread of HIV appeared less rapid in those Asian countries in which circumcision is routine (e.g., the Philippines, Indonesia, and Bangladesh). Because of the compelling evidence linking the foreskin and HIV transmission, many physicians previously ambivalent about recommending universal neonatal circumcision have come to support it.
In view of the documented, significant medical benefits of circumcision, why is there reluctance and sometimes outright antipathy toward the measure? Below are some reasons.
Evidence of such benefits, particularly concerning UTIs and HIV infection, has been published only since the early 1980s and has not been widely disseminated.
Most of the members of the committee that developed the AAP's early, anticircumcision pronouncements in the 1970s were neonatologistsspecialists in diseases of newborns. Neonatologists are the physicians most apt to see any immediate complications of circumcision and least apt to see its health benefits, which are postneonatal.
Although after reviewing the current medical evidence the AAP (continued on page 28) reversed its early statements on circumcision, vociferous lay organizations continue to promulgate the outdated statements.
Pain, of course, is a valid concern. Skilled circumcisers generally perform the procedure in less than five minutes. (In my opinion, the operation should never last more than 10 minutes.) True adepts, including religious circumcisers (in Judaism, called mohels), generally perform the procedure in less than 2 minutes. When it is performed properly, the operation is simple, safe, and brief. But it is painful. And although infants heal quickly, they do feel and react to pain. Nevertheless, relief agents are available and should be used. Local anesthesia (dorsal penile nerve block) works well, as does ingesting a sugar solution (which stimulates secretion of endorphins). Initially, there was some apprehension about using local anesthesia in neonatal circumcision, but the safety and effectiveness of such use has been convincingly documented.
Anticircumcision activists claim that the foreskin increases sexual pleasure. But data from recent studies suggest the contrary. According to a report from the National Health and Social Life Survey (NHSLS), published in 1997 in the Journal of the American Medical Association, sexual dysfunction was more common among uncircumcised men than among circumcised men, especially later in life. While nearly every type of sexual dysfunction was likelier for uncircumcised men, the likelihood of difficulty in getting or maintaining an erection was significantly higher than the likelihood of other types of dysfunction.
Sex appeal is another valid concern, but beauty is in the eye of the beholder. According to a study published in 1988, young, heterosexual, middle-class women in Iowa City preferred the circumcised penis over the uncircumcised penis by a margin of 3 to 1. Seventy-five percent of the 100 women said it looked sexier; 85 percent said it felt better; 92 percent said it stayed cleaner; and 77 percent said it seemed "more natural." (In her bestseller Operating Instructions, about her experience as a new mother, Anne LaMott stated that she had chosen circumcision for her newborn for reasons of hygiene and appearance. She said uncircumcised penises looked "sort of marsupial, or like little rodents stuck in garden hoses.")
Cultural, religious, and ethnic factors strongly affect the decision whether or not to request circumcision. Circumcision of members of observant Muslim and Jewish families is a religious rite. But some culturesHispanic and Asian, for exampledo not embrace circumcision. In California, where 45 percent of newborns are Hispanic, the rate of circumcision is less than 50 percent. Circumcision has been on the decline there as the birth rate of Hispanics and Asians has increased. In the midwestern United States, where immigrants and minorities constitute a smaller proportion of the population, the circumcision rate is 75 to 80 percent. Educational factors are important as well. Of those men in the NHSLS group whose mothers had not graduated from high school, 62 percent had been circumcised; but of those whose mothers had undergone further education, 85 percent had been circumcised.
Complications of neonatal circumcision are uncommon. Minor bleeding and infection occur in one out of every 300 to 500 cases and are easily controlled. Serious complications are rare and are usually related to poor surgical technique. In a survey of 500,000 neonatal circumcisions in New York State, researchers found that no deaths or penile amputations had resulted.
The lifetime health benefits of neonatal circumcisionincluding the long-known benefits of genital-hygiene improvement and prevention of local infection and penile cancerfar exceed the risks of the procedure. Circumcision prevents serious kidney infections, particularly in infancy; and there is strong evidence that it has a protective effect against some serious STDs, especially HIV infection, syphilis, and chancroid. A one-week-old circumcised boy has a significant health advantage over his uncircumcised contemporary. And being without a foreskin won't dent his sex life.
Edgar J. Schoen, M.D., is Director of Regional Perinatal Screening in the Department of Genetics at Kaiser Permanente Medical Center, Oakland, California.
taken from: WordPress › Error

  
kendemyer
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 90 (110495)
05-25-2004 6:57 PM


re: mohel, a correction
I wish to make a retraction.
A "mohel is a person of the Jewish faith who is ordained to do circumcision under the guidelines of the Jewish religion"
quote taken from: http://philo.ucdavis.edu/.../RST23/STDNTPAGES/Hunt/mohel.htm
But as you can see from the above site not all mohels are rabbis. I am also guessing not all rabbis are mohels!
Sincerely,
Ken

  
Ricka
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 90 (110744)
05-26-2004 7:51 PM


I really dont need to wade through all of the original post Ken to reply.
In the simplist of terms..
God took care of his children.
I started reading your original post and I kept saying "well, of course."
It really isnt that hard to figure out.
One only needs to understand.

  
custard
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 90 (110754)
05-26-2004 8:41 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by kendemyer
05-24-2004 10:49 PM


Complex Question Fallacy
I submit that your topic is an example of the Complex Question Fallacy.
Whether Mosaic food laws, or anything else in the Tanakh or NT for that matter, are reasonable does not infer that they were inspired by divine knowledge; nor does it infer the existence of any sort of deity.
Using that logic, I could just as easily claim that Jules Verne had divine knowledge because he wrote about electrically powered submarines (the Nautilus) or manned missions to the moon (From Earth to the Moon).
This message has been edited by custard, 05-26-2004 07:42 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by kendemyer, posted 05-24-2004 10:49 PM kendemyer has not replied

  
kendemyer
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 90 (110906)
05-27-2004 2:24 PM


to: ALL
TO: All
Dr. Macht who's study was published by John Hopkins studied 88 animals in regards to toxicity levels and found that the clean animals in the Mosaic code were non toxic and the unclean animals were toxic. Dr. Macht studied quadrupeds, birds, and fish (a clean fish was one that had fins and scales).
I am particularly interested in careful scholars/individuals examination of Dr. Macht's study and their input.
I realize,however, that not all libraries have the study in their buildings. It may require people to use Worldcat and Interlibrary loan. At the same time, however, I will say that I found the study in the first library I checked which was a health science library at a university. With this in mind, I will check back at this site in 3 months (June, July, August is my work busy season) and see what input, if any, was posted here. We then can have a dialogue regarding the Dr. Macht study.
TO: Brian
No hurry on responding to my email. I just wanted to offer a friendly note to you.
Sincerely,
Ken

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by sidelined, posted 05-27-2004 3:04 PM kendemyer has not replied

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1393 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 26 of 90 (110914)
05-27-2004 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by kendemyer
05-25-2004 6:17 PM


Circumcision
Ken sayeth:
quote:
I know there is not 100% consensus regarding circumcision. I do believe, however, that circumcision while not medically necessary does have its advantages and that the pros outweigh the cons.
I thought we were talking about Divine Wisdom here. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're asserting that the ancient Israelites were privy to amazingly advanced medical knowledge, given from on high by their all-knowing Lord. If God tells us to mutilate newborn males, there should be an absolutely indisputable reason for doing so independent of the fact that the Bible says God tells us to do so! So where is it?
regards,
Esteban Hambre

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by kendemyer, posted 05-25-2004 6:17 PM kendemyer has not replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 27 of 90 (110915)
05-27-2004 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by kendemyer
05-27-2004 2:24 PM


Re: to: ALL
kendemyer
Dr. Macht who's study was published by John Hopkins studied 88 animals in regards to toxicity levels and found that the clean animals in the Mosaic code were non toxic and the unclean animals were toxic. Dr. Macht studied quadrupeds, birds, and fish (a clean fish was one that had fins and scales).
This is easily explained by the simple assumption that any food that was toxic produced either death or extreme illness and as a consequence was written into mosaic code as a food to be avoided. Divine intervention is not necessary in order to explain this.
on the west coast of B.C. is a phenomena known as "red tide" which occurs at certain times and results in a rise in toxins in shellfish.
Indeed, one of the hardest hit areas is along the relatively pristine coast of British Columbia where in 1989 a quarter of a pound of contaminated mussels was found to contain enough toxin to kill 16 people.
So during red tide the simple rule of thumb followed by people is to not eat these shellfish.To be completely clear it is often found that toxin levels do not necessarily result in a red tide but the implication is clear as to the response of people to such a threat.No divine revelation needed just an awareness of correlations between events and resulting health of the public [or tribe in the case of moses].

"For the mind of man is far from the nature of clear and equal glass,wherein the beams of things should reflect according to their true incidence;nay,it is rather like an enchanted glass,full of superstition and imposture.if it be not delivered and reduced." Sir Francis Bacon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by kendemyer, posted 05-27-2004 2:24 PM kendemyer has not replied

  
kendemyer
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 90 (110917)
05-27-2004 3:24 PM


to: sidelined and ALL
Dear Sidelined,
Dr. Macht studied both clean and unclean animals and the clean animals turned up non-toxic.
I also think your post reflects a person who has not read the actual study. It is natural that people will make comments on the study before reading it. At the same time, however, I would say that it is the people who read the study who are going to be able to make the most informed and thoughtful commentary regarding the study.
TO: ALL
I am only interested in the input of those individuals who have read the actual study. My time priorities at this time do not allow me to elaborate on the study at all the boards I posted this information at in order to benefit those who may have interest in this topic and wish to investigate further. I do not think it is a unreasonable request for people to look up the original study before having a dialogue with me. If it is a unreasonable request, I would say that on this matter of it being a unreasonable request we will have to agree to disagree. I will say though that scholars commonly use interlibrary loan and services like WorldCat.
Sincerely,
Ken

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by sidelined, posted 05-27-2004 4:07 PM kendemyer has not replied

  
kendemyer
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 90 (110920)
05-27-2004 3:34 PM


clarification
TO: ALL, a clarification
I said in my previous post:
"I am only interested in the input of those individuals who have read the actual study."
I was referring to the Dr. Macht study.
I also wish to add that it is the Dr. Macht study that I am most interested in discussing. I know the circumcision debate can get intense because it is dealing with a certain part of the male anatomy, but I wish to reiterate that it is the Dr. Macht study regarding the toxicity of the clean and unclean animals in the Mosaic code that I am most interested in discussing. I really have seen no skeptic make any informed commentary on this study published by John Hopkins. I think a dialogue could be helpful if both parties discuss the topic in a reasonable manner.
Sincerely,
Ken

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 30 of 90 (110931)
05-27-2004 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by kendemyer
05-27-2004 3:24 PM


Re: to: sidelined and ALL
Ken
Dr. Macht studied both clean and unclean animals and the clean animals turned up non-toxic
How does this refute my point? I have indeed not read the study and was answering to the point you made about Dr.Macht finding toxic animals as being unclean and that is fully consistent with the explanation I offered.If you think there is something else in that study which refutes my stance then please provide it.I work in construction and often put in 14-16 hour days at this time of year so my time is also short.
It is your responsibilty to defend your reasons for accepting the results of the study. I hope it is not too inconvenient for you but if it is I will not be offended by you ignoring me.

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts. "

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by kendemyer, posted 05-27-2004 3:24 PM kendemyer has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Abshalom, posted 05-28-2004 4:44 PM sidelined has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024