THE MOSAIC DIETARY CODES SHOW DIVINE INTELLIGENCE

[christianonnet]

ARE THE MOSAIC DIEATARY LAWS VERY ADVANCED AND DO THEY SHOW EVIDENCE OF DIVINE KNOWLEDGE? ANY OTHER ADVANCED KNOWLEDGE IN THE TORAH?


PREFACE

I would suggest there is excellent evidence that the Mosaic law was inspired and way ahead of its time. At the time of Moses we must remember that the Egyptians were putting dung on wounds. A website publishes a fascinating chapter from the book "God's Truth" which clearly shows the Mosaic Law was way ahead of its time in its scientific understanding. Here is a link to this chapter and please scroll down to the heading "Health is wealth" and read from that point on: http://www.godstruth.org/chap08

By the way, I do realize that Christians are in no way under the dietary or ceremonial laws of the Old Testament. Paul's letter to the Galatians clearly tells us this.


MACHT STUDY PUBLISHED BY JOHN HOPKINS REGARDING THE MOSAIC DIETARY LAWS AND OTHER DATA

I cite the following webpage that contains information that was published by David I. Macht at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and it concerns itself with the Mosaic Law dietary laws:

http://www.pacifichealthcenter.com/updates/29.asp

Here is the exact citation:

Macht, D. M.D., (1953). “An Experimental Pharmacological Appreciation of Levitcus XI and Deuteronomy XIV,” Bulletin of the History of Medicine. 27. 444-450

If one reads the Macht study you will see that he tested 88 animals (quadrupeds, birds, and fish) and the Bible came out with excellent results in relation to his toxicity tests and the unclean and clean animals (if one takes the position that the food laws may have some health benefits).

As a result of his research Dr. Macht wrote:

Quote:
"Every word of the Hebrew Scriptures is well chosen and carries valuable knowledge and deep signficance."


I heartily agree!

To this day, there is a David I . Macht award given at John Hopkins as can be seen at: http://www.jhu.edu/~gazette/2001/apr0901/09young.html

I would not be surprised if the "David I. Macht" award was a much coveted award despite the admonitions regarding coveting in the Ten Commandments!

Here is some information regarding the study published by John Hopkins by Macht (there are awards given in his name at the present time at John Hopkins as can be seen in my previous post):

A website declares regarding the fish portion of Machts study (other animals besides fish were tested):

"Scientific research upholds the contention that Biblical dietary laws contain wisdom regarding one’s choice of foods. For example, Macht (1953) in an experimental study classified fish as toxic or nontoxic. He found thirty-three fish (with scales and fins) to be in the nontoxic category. Common favorites included in this list were cod, haddock, herring, salmon, rainbow trout and yellow perch. He also classified several fish (types of seafood) as toxic (without scales and fins). These included many of the bottom dwellers, scavengers, and slimy creatures such as the catfish, eel, sand shark, and dogfish shark.[3] Although the list by Macht is not complete, it does give evidence that supports the biblical classification of fish based on presence or absence of scales and fins. This classification is useful in determining which of these creatures’ humans should consume. Clearly, a wise person should not intentionally consume toxic fish. Salaman (1995) in her book Foods That Heal stated that seafood eaten several times a week contributes to controlling fat circulating in the blood and also keeps cholesterol levels low. Although she is not writing from a biblical perspective she showed an awareness of the problem with some types of seafood. On page fourteen she writes, “certain seafoods-oysters, crab, clams-are rich in nutrients, but some authorities refer to them as the garbage collectors of the sea, full of pollutants.” Interestingly an even higher authority, the Creator God, has informed us that this characterization is valid (Leviticus 11:9-10 and Deuteronomy 14:9-10). As is always the case, when a complete understanding of scripture is matched up against “true science” they are in agreement. The eating of fish also appears to be very important to a healthy heart and proper blood pressure. This relationship is mainly due to a special group of oils called omega-3 oils. Many of the fish, which are rich in omega-3 oils, match those, which are classified as nontoxic in the Macht study. They include mackerel, salmon, tuna, whitefish, herring and sardines. Many population studies have shown that consuming a diet rich in these omega-3 oils reduces the risk of heart disease and over sixty double blind studies have demonstrated that fish oil supplements are effective in lowering blood pressure (Murray, p. 258-260). Dr. Julian Whitaker recommends salmon and mackerel as good sources of Vitamin B12 in helping to fight anemia (Gottlieb, p.170). Dr. Camran Neshat, M. D. (director of fertility and Edoscopy Center in Atlanta) and Dr. Elson Haas, M. D., (director of the Preventive Medical Center in San Rafael, California) both stated that eating fish can suppress the production of prostaglandin, the hormone which causes cramping and endometriosis in women (Gottleib, p. 290-292). The types of fish they mentioned include mackerel, salmon, tuna, herring, whitefish, and sardines (all of which are found on Macht’s nontoxic list).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 3
According to Nutrition Almanac consuming fish or fish oils on a regular basis guards against glucose intolerance in Type II diabetes, raises HDL cholesterol, acts as an anti-inflammatory agent, and aids in reducing rheumatoid arthritis symptoms. They also help osteoarthritis, Raynaud’s disease, ulcerative colitis, and migraines. Some fish are also high in the antioxidant coenzyme Q10 and selenium (p. 365)."

taken from: http://www.vision.edu/iws/Foods%20scien ... 0Bible.pdf



THE OMEGA 3 QUESTION

The question of course is what fish are comparatively better when it comes to omega 3 if we are taking the position that the food laws do or do not have health benefits (although Christians are not under them). Do clean fish or unclean fish have comparively more omega 3 per ounce/gram?

DO CLEAN FISH HAVE MORE OMEGA 3?

A webiste states:

"Some fish contain more omega 3s than others. These fish tend to be the deep, cold water variety. You must couple this recommendation with the cautionary notes that pregnant women be careful about the type of fish they choose to eat because of the risk of heavy metal and pesticide contamination that can accumulate in fish. Fetuses can be damaged by these toxic chemicals. The fish especially rich in omega three fatty acids include mackerel, salmon, trout, rockfish, herring, whitefish, anchovy, and tuna.

Pregnant women are warned against eating swordfish, shark or fresh tuna, and all fresh water fish. Fresh water is more apt to be contaminated than ocean waters. Of those fish that are okay to eat, eat a variety of them. This will reduce your risk of overdosing on one particular contaminant."

taken from:
http://www.ivillage.com/food/expert...ba=adid=8171818

Now all of the above fish cited at the nutritional weblink above are clean fish (mackerel, salmon, trout, rockfish, herring, whitefish, anchovy, and tuna). You can see they are clean fish here: http://www.kashrut.com/articles/fish/

I also offer the following website material:

"Among water creatures, only those with fins and scales are kosher. Anything else--including shrimp, lobster, scallops, crabs, and other bottom-dwelling sea scavengers--is unkosher. Note that some fish have fins but not scales (like catfish, shark, and swordfish), and are therefore not kosher.

Clean fish include bass, cod, flounder, haddock, halibut, perch, sole, salmon, red snapper, trout, and other fresh and salt water fish having both fins and scales. Scientists tell us that these fish are especially rich in omega-3 fatty acids which can decrease the risk of coronary disease and cancer. Fin-and-scale fish are also a good source of polyunsaturated fatty acids necessary in the production of hormones.

Evidence suggests that eating these fish can also reduce the level of harmful cholesterol in the bloodstream."

taken from: http://www.cjf.org/pages/kosher1.htm


REGARDING FAT:

A website declares:

"Perhaps the most interesting point of all, however, is the fact that medical science has proved there is a correlation between heart disease and diets high in animal fat. Fatal coronary heart disease has been caused by diets containing high levels of fat. Animal fats are high in cholesterol.

But what does this have to do with the Bible? Simply this: Dr. Paul Dudley White, the heart specialist who treated President Eisenhower while he was in the White House, once quoted Leviticus 7:23:

"Ye shall eat no manner of fat, of ox, or of goat."

Dr. Paul Dudley White asserted, "It is conceivable that a few years from now we medical men may repeat to the citizens of the United States of America the advice that Moses was asked by God to present to the children of Israel 3,000 years ago."

Was Moses way ahead of his time? God told Israel to avoid eating animal fats -- diets high in animal fat -- a major cause of clogged arteries and coronary heart disease!

Here is further evidence that the Biblical health teachings "scooped" modern medical science by 3,400 years!"

taken from: http://www.triumphpro.com/ancient_bible ... today!.htm


OMEGA 3 COMPARISON IS NEEDED

Now one person told me that some species of shark liver oil are excellent sources of omega 3. I would ask and rightfully so, do non clean fish have as much omega 3s comparitively to the clean fish as a species and do these kinds of fish have as much omega 3 as a general category (for example, sharks)? I would also point out we are just talking about the shark liver and we should be concerned with the whole fish I would think. Also, what does Macht say regarding the toxicity of the unclean fish versus the clean fish?

MERCURY IN TUNA OBJECTION

Some might point out that mercury is in tuna which is a clean fish. However, I would say they need to show that mercury was a problem in the pre- christ resurrection era. They would also need to show that Macht at John Hopkins tested for mercury in his study or that mercury levels were high in 1953.

Please note: I do realize that the Bible says in the book of Galations that Christians are not under the dietary laws of the Old Testament.


DID THE ANCIENT JEWS HAVE COOKING THERMOMETERS?

I realize the trichonosis is prevented by cooking pork properly according to most experts. However, it is equally true that the ancient Jews did not have cooking thermometers since some people assert that trichonosis parasites are easily killed through proper cooking. Obviously, few would disagree with me regarding the lack of ancient Jewish thermometers. And of course, there is the question of which meat is comparatively better unclean animals or clean in terms of total parasites, toxins, fat content (the Torah said not to eat the fat which doctors are starting to agree with), etc.


BUT BEEF'S RED MEAT IS KOSHER! IS THIS OBJECTION OVERRULED?

Now some would point out that red meat of beef is not an ideal food and that cattle are considered a clean animal as per the Mosaic Law. I would cite the following:

I cite the following website:

"Simply stated, grass fed beef is HEALTHY BEEF. Cows are ruminants who evolved eating fresh grass - not corn, or grain or whatever the giant feed lot cattle industry feeds them.....

By contrast, most supermarket beef is raised in crowded “feed lots” on a diet of mostly corn and other feed grains or feed “by-products”. This is an important distinction in light of new scientific research in the area of human nutrition and health. Several studies on the nutrient composition of beef revealed that grass-fed beef is substantially lower in total fat than grain-fed beef. In fact it is almost as lean as skinless chicken breast. A 6-ounce steak from a pasture-finished steer has almost 100 fewer calories than a 6-ounce steak from a grain-finished steer. Also, the ratio of “ essential fatty acids” (good fat vs. bad fat) in grass-fed beef is much closer to ideal than grain finished beef 1. Nutritionists are currently recommending that people try to maintain a ratio of less than 4 parts “Omega 6” fatty acid to 1 part “omega 3” fatty acid. The average American diet is approximately a ratio of 20 to 1. Current research suggests that this in-balance of essential fatty acids may be a contributing factor in the dramatic increases in heart disease, diabetes, mental illness and certain types of cancer that are so prevalent in America today 2. Grass-fed beef has from 2 to 6 times more “Omega 3” fatty acid as a percent of total fat than grain finished beef 1.

Grass fed beef also has 2 to 5 times more “Conjugated Linoleic Acid” or CLA than grain-fed beef. CLA is another “good fat” that shows promise of reducing cancer, diabetes, obesity, and a number of immune system disorders."

taken from: http://www.vermontbeef.com/

E. COLI OBJECTION

Some might point out the current E. Coli problem. I would ask though the following:

1) Would the ancient Hebrew have processing plants that see tons and tons of meat going through them?

2) In regards to hamburger processing plants, you might want to do some research regarding the relatively air tight modern buildings we have now as far as storage facilities and processing plants and the increased proliferation of E. Coli (natural air has ozone in it which kills E. Coli. Please see: http://www.yourairknowledge.com/ozone.htm). Ozone kills E. Coli on surfaces.

3) I would also say that I personally do not know if the E. Coli that existed now is more or equally virulent as the E. Coli that existed in ancient Isael or if E. Coli was as prevalent.

4) How much GROUND beef did the ancient Israeli's eat?

(I do realize that the ancient Israelis did not have refridgeration which probably affects things).


ADDENDUM

A limited number of libraries have the Macht reference. I would suggest going to your local university or college health science library. If you have no universities or colleges near you I suggest the following:

If you are looking for a library near you that has the Macht source that was quoted then I suggest you go to a library that has WorldCat access (many do) which will tell you what library near you has the Macht material that was cited. Here is WorldCat's URL: http://www.oclc.org/worldcat/

I am also confident that interlibrary loan can obtain a copy for you as I stated before ( a service where libraries borrow from each other for those who are unacquainted with interlibrary loan). Most libraries have access to interlibrary loan. You do not need to know what library has the Macht material that was cited to use interlibrary loan just in case you are not aware of this. Here is the URL of interlibrary loan: http://www.loc.gov/rr/loan/ "


MOSAIC LAWS WERE ADVANCED IN SANITARY AND PUBLIC HEALTH LAWS

"How was the Black Death finally conquered? Declared David Riesman, Professor of the History of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania: "Isolation of the sick and quarantine came into use. These practices not only eliminated the plague as a pandemic menace for the first time in history but also led to general laws against infectious diseases, thereby laying the foundations upon which modern hygiene rests" (Medicine in the Middle Ages, p. 260).

Where did these principles originate? From the Bible!

The Old Testament contains many hygienic injunctions which relate to health. If the world would have obeyed them, its disease toll would have been drastically cut. Until the close of the 17th century, hygienic conditions in cities were generally deplorable. Excrement was often dumped into the streets. Flies, breeding in the filth, and rodents spread and carried disease to millions. During the Industrial Revolution working-class families sometimes lived in squalid, dark, airless tenements, perhaps 30 families sharing one toilet which probably was connected to a cesspool overflowing into the street. Some households simply emptied chamber pots out the window. As a result, streets sometimes looked more like garbage pits than avenues!"

taken from: http://www.triumphpro.com/ancient_bible ... today!.htm

ALSO CONSIDER THIS INFORMATION REGARDING SANITARY LAWS:

"However, unknown to scientists and men of medicine, incredibly, the principle of burying excrement and filth -- the basic underlying principle of MODERN SANITATION -- was a basic LAW given in the Scriptures, fourteen centuries before Christ. God told Moses and the children of Israel:

"Thou shalt have a place also without the camp, whither thou shalt go forth abroad:
and thou shalt have a paddle upon thy weapon; and it shall be, when thou wilt ease
thyself abroad, thou shalt dig therewith, and shalt turn back and cover that which
cometh from thee" (Deut. 23:12-13).

Says Castiglioni, "The regulations in Deuteronomy as to how soldiers should prevent the danger of infection coming from their excrement by covering it with earth constitute a most important document of sanitary legislation" (A History of Medicine, p. 70). Castiglioni declared, "Study of Biblical texts appears to have demonstrated that the ancient Semitic peoples, in agreement with the most modern tenets of epidemiology, attributed more importance to animal transmitters of disease, like the rat and the fly, than to the contagious individual" (Ibid., p. 71).

An indication that the Hebrews knew that the rat was implicated in the spread of plague is found in I Samuel 6:4-5, where an outbreak of plague was associated with "rats that have ravaged the whole land" (Living Bible). But 3,000 years later, when the Bubonic Plague devastated Europe, this knowledge had generally been lost. Some blamed noxious fumes in the air, some blamed the stars, some blamed a conjunction of Mars, Jupiter and Saturn, some blamed the Jews, and many blamed God.

Generally, the world did not wake up to the importance of hygiene and cleanliness until about the end of the 18th century. Yet vital principles of sanitation and cleanliness were expounded long ago by God to Moses!

taken from: http://www.triumphpro.com/ancient_bible ... today!.htm


HANDLING DEAD BODIES

A website declares:

"Consider another example. In Vienna in 1846 Ignaz Semmelweis noticed that one patient in eight died of puerperal fever in one ward where they were tended by physicians and medical students who had just performed autopsies on victims who had died. He noticed that in a ward ministered by midwives, however, the death rate was much lower. He ordered all attendants to wash their hands before treating the patients and the following year the death rate dropped to zero. Unfortunately, the medical "authorities" were not impressed, refused to believe there was any direct connection, and Semmelweis was summarily dismissed from his job!

But the really remarkable fact is that Semmelweis, even though he was far ahead of the prevailing medical opinion of his time in the mid-1800's, was still 3,200 years behind in medical knowledge! Almost 1,500 years before Christ, God gave Moses detailed instructions on cleaning one's hands and body after handling the dead! You can read these extensive hygienic laws in Numbers, the 19th chapter, verses 11-22.

Semmelweis made an important discovery, but merely washing the hands once would not be accepted as proper sanitation in any reputable hospital, today. However, the Biblical laws went further. They stated the person who touched a corpse was to be considered "unclean seven days." The third day he was to purify himself and be sprinkled with the water of separation or purification. That is, the water was to be thrown on him (Hebrew zaraq, "to throw" or "sprinkle"). Some authorities say that running water was to be used (verse 17). This duty was to be repeated on the seventh day, and the individual was then to wash his clothes and bathe himself in water -- and then he would be considered "clean." "

TAKEN FROM: http://www.triumphpro.com/ancient_bible ... today!.htm

Now some would say that not much disease is perhaps transported via the handling of dead bodies. Of course, this raises the question of whether it is better or not better to elaborately wash after handling a corpse and to separate yourself for a time and not necessarily the likelihood of transmission. I would also say that the Israeli did not have access the Mayo Clinic or have public department of health and so perhaps preventative measures would be more prudent at this time in history (although I do believe in supernatural healing and I have experienced it). I would also say that running water was not a luxury everyone had at this time and so perhaps the infectious material would be on their body longer.

WAS THE MOSAIC LAW ADVANCED WHEN IT CAME TO LEPROSY?

Bacteria

Some time after I wrote these web pages, a Bible skeptic unwittingly showed me yet another example of advanced scientific/medical knowledge in the Bible. He posted a message on a discussion board that ridiculed some verses in Leviticus 13 and 14 that mention leprosy on walls and on garments. He felt this was silly and an error since leprosy is a human disease. What this skeptic was unaware of is the fact that leprosy is a bacteria, a living organism, that certainly can survive on walls and garments! In fact, the Medic-Planet.com encyclopedia notes that leprosy "can survive three weeks or longer outside the human body, such as in dust or on clothing"2. It is no wonder that God commanded the Levitical priests to burn the garments of leprosy victims! (Leviticus 13:52)

Laws of Quarantine

In the same Med-Planet encyclopedia cited above we read that "It was not until 1873 that leprosy could be shown to be infectious rather than hereditary."2 Of course God knew this all along, as His laws to Moses reveal (Leviticus 13, 14, 22, Numbers 19:20). His instructions regarding quarantine to prevent the spread of leprosy and other infectious diseases are nothing short of remarkable, considering that this life-saving practice was several thousand years ahead of its time. Infected persons were instructed to isolate themselves outside the camp until healed, and were to shave and wash thoroughly. The priests that administered care were instructed to change their clothes and wash thoroughly after inspecting a plague victim.

It should be re-emphasized that the Israelites were the only culture to practice quarantine until the last century, when medical advances finally demonstrated the importance of sanitation and isolation during plagues. The devastating black plague of the 14th century that claimed millions of lives was not broken until the church fathers in Vienna began encouraging the public to start following the guidelines as set forth in the Bible. The promising results in Vienna compelled other cities to follow suit, and the dreaded plague was finally eradicated3."

taken from: http://www.bibleevidences.com/medical.htm

Another website declares:


"Another plague which prevailed in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries in Europe was leprosy. England, Sweden, Iceland and Norway showed alarming gains in the numbers of leprosy cases in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. But when the authorities began to institute the quarantine, in the form of segregation of leprosy cases, the plague was again brought under control.

In Norway rigid national quarantine was introduced in 1856 because of the widespread severity of leprosy. "Ninety years later the health authorities were able to report that Norway had only five per cent of the number of lepers that were there before segregation. Similarly favorable reports come to us from Finland and Sweden, where enforced segregation of lepers had also been instituted," writes D. T. Atkinson (Magic, Myth and Medicine, p. 64).

Where did these quarantine laws come from? This same author tells us,

"It is most singular that a description of leprosy, as found in the thirteenth
chapter of Leviticus, could have been written so long before our time. it is to
be noticed that such an accurate description of this dread malady as it appears
in the Biblical narrative is not to be found in the literature of any nation for
the next seventeen hundred years" (ibid., p. 25-26).

Speaking of the Biblical laws regarding leprosy, Atkinson states:

"The laws of health laid down in Leviticus are the basis of modern sanitary
science. Moses ordered that cases of leprosy should be segregated, that
dwellings from which infected Jews had gone should be inspected before
again being occupied, and that persons recovering from contagious disease
were not to be allowed to go abroad until examined. The modern quarantine
harks back to these sanitary regulations of the Old Testament. " (p. 58). "

taken from: http://www.triumphpro.com/ancient_bible ... today!.htm



NEXT LET US TAKE A LOOK AT CIRCUMCISION:

A website declares:

"Interestingly, cancer of the cervix -- which comprises about 25 percent of the cancer of women in general -- is very rare among Jewish women. Wrote Dr. Louis Lasagna,

"Since the beginning of the nineteenth century it has been known that, married
or unmarried, Gentile women have two to three times as high an incidence of
genital cancer (particularly cancer of the cervix) as do Jewish women. Wherever
physicians have compiled statistics-in New York and Vienna, Budapest and London,
Leeds and Amsterdam-this differential susceptibility to genital cancer has emerged"
(ibid., p. 243).

This finding astounded the medical experts. Why are Jewish women comparatively free from this dreaded scourge?"

taken from: http://www.triumphpro.com/ancient_bible ... today!.htm

Another website declares:

"The authors cite a study, published a decade ago, of 422 Kenyan men who habitually visited prostitutes. The research showed that the uncircumcised men had an 8.2 times greater risk of infection. Of 38 additional investigations, 27 from eight different countries found a similar association between uncut men and infection."

taken from: http://archive.salon.com/health/sex/urg ... nakedaids/

Another website declares:

"The AAP [American Academy of Pediatrics] withdrew its opposition to circumcision because accumulating evidence suggests it does have health benefits, preventing penile cancer and reducing urinary tract infections in infants."

taken from: http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a940128.html

MOSES RISES FROM THE GRAVE AND CONFIRMS BENEFITS OF CIRCUMCISION?

"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."

taken from: http://www.acsh.org/healthissues/newsID ... detail.asp

MORE REGARDING CIRCUMCISION:

A website declares:

"MAN SAID it has no real value. In 1971, the prestigious American Academy of Pediatrics said, "Circumcision may have some religious reason but it delivers no medical benefit whatsoever." Up until that time male circumcision was routine in America.

Now, THE RECORD: First let it be noted that the covenant of circumcision was initially entered into by Abraham, the Old Testament patriarch. J. Free writes the following in his scholarly book titled, Archaeology and the Bible as History:

"Archaeological discoveries show that the practice of circumcision can be traced back to the days of Abraham. This surgical operation is pictured on the reliefs of Egypt which go back into Old Testament times."

.....Birth records of 219,755 male children born in U.S. Armed Forces hospitals from 1975 to 1979 were examined. It was found that the uncircumcised experienced an 1100% higher incidence of urinary tract infections. After nine different studies were reviewed, the finding was that the uncircumcised suffered urinary tract infections 12 times more often than those who were circumcised. The uncircumcised are 800% more likely to acquire AIDS via a heterosexual relationship......

In 50,000 penile cancer cases recorded in the U.S., 49,990 were among uncircumcised men. Only ten of those cancer victims were circumcised! Ten thousand of the 50,000 penile cancer cases died as a result of the disease. Uncircumcised men have twice the incidence of prostate cancer. Plus, later in a man's life, he is twice as likely to have erectile dysfunction as his circumcised counterpart.

The circumcision issue also affects the female. Studies have documented higher rates of cervical cancer in women who have had one or more uncircumcised partners. The benefits from male circumcision run on and on. I have listed several of them."

taken from: http://www.godsaidmansaid.com/topic3.as ... ItemId=569


IN A HURRY? NEED A QUICK SKILLFUL CIRCUMCISION? SEE THE RABBI NOT THE DOCTOR!

A website declares:

"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: http://www.circumcisioninfo.com/schoen1.html


OBJECTIONS TO CIRCUMCISION BEING EVIDENCE OF DIVINE ADVANCED KNOWLEDGE

Some would say that the benefits of circumcision shows design flaws. Of course, to show that there were design flaws you must show that cancer and vendereal disease, and infections were not a result of a fall in the Garden of Eden). I do not think this objection can be sustained.

[Jovaro]

You mean that it shows intelligence. More intelligence then can be expected from people of those days.

But why would that intelligence have to be divine?
Why not alien? To give a random example...

[Nickatwarwick]

Come on Jovaro. Not like you at all. Illogical suggestions like aliens planting knowledge amongst the ancients? You'll be blaming things on the transit of Venus next. [ ]

Even if you don't want to take this as divine inspiration, why not file it away under the category of "eerie co-incidences" that seem to fill this Bible we keep talking about.

Nick

[wigginsmum]

Wow - that's a huge post with some very interesting stuff. I have no problem with people keeping kosher or being circumcised, as long as they don't think it's required by God under the New Covenant. I was certainly aware of the hygiene benefits of circumcision.

Given the way our food is produced these days, I think there's a lot to be said for only eating organic, reducing animal products or even going vegan.

Jules

[Jovaro]

Aliens was just a random example, if you have some imagination you could think of a dozen likely other ones.
The question was, every time christians see something special they automaticly give God credit for it without realising that there might be more answers to the question then God.

Why are aliens with a purpose for mankind more illogical then a God with a purpose for mankind btw?

[Nickatwarwick]

Because I've had personal experiences with God considerably more gripping than the X Files.

Nick

[Jovaro]

And that is what it all boils down to, even in this science forum: Personal experiences.

Personal.

[Nickatwarwick]

You're right, but how could it be any other way? Christianity is about a personal relationship with God. Chatting on a forum isn't going to get you one of these. All we can do here is share our experiences and answer any questions you have about us crazy Christians

God Bless

Nick

[Jovaro]

I understand Christianity pretty good, just not how some Christians can be so ignorant towards science when it might indicate something else then what they thought the Bible said.

Or the intolerancy some have towards other religions. The most stupid thing Jesus ever said must have been: "The only way to the father is through me"

Why didn't he know how much intolerancy that would create or why didn't he care about that and the many many casualties as a consequence?

And don't claim that the casualties were not by Jesus but by men, for we all know that Jesus didn't tell about tolerancy when uttering that phrase.

[webmaster]

I understand Christianity pretty good, just not how some Christians can be so ignorant towards science when it might indicate something else then what they thought the Bible said.

Or the intolerancy some have towards other religions. The most stupid thing Jesus ever said must have been: "The only way to the father is through me"

Why didn't he know how much intolerancy that would create or why didn't he care about that and the many many casualties as a consequence?

And don't claim that the casualties were not by Jesus but by men, for we all know that Jesus didn't tell about tolerancy when uttering that phrase.

Tolerate
[v] put up with something or somebody unpleasant
[v] allow the presence of or allow (an activity) without opposing or prohibiting
[v] Medicine: have a tolerance for a poison or strong drug or pathogen
[v] recognize and respect (rights and beliefs of others)

So what you are saying Jesus should have been more tolerate toward other people's unbelief like?
Hitler?
The Taliban?
The Crusaders?
Jim Jones?
Satan Worshippers?
People who murder?
People who steal?
Atheists?
etc.....
But the worst sin of all is unbelief!
Which fits all in the list!

The problem as I see it Jovaro is that you don't understand what Jesus meant when he said "The only way to the father is through me".

[Jovaro]

Ok, lets try your post again now webmaster with some more representive examples from society.

About all the examples you give (few exceptions) can be summarized with one word: scum. I hope you don't think of the rest of the world as scum?

I can understand that Jesus said that the only way to the father was through him, but not that he didn't see or didn't care about the consequences of those words.
Those words gave every christian the possibility to look down or to pity people that are not christians. "Because they are wrong, or because they are not enlightened or something like that"

But those people are absolutely sure that they are not wrong. They know they are right just as you know that you are right.
Those people don't need to be looked down upon nor do they want your pity.

[webmaster]

About all the examples you give (few exceptions) can be summarized with one word: scum. I hope you don't think of the rest of the world as scum?

I never called them scum, you did.
We as Christians don't view ourselves any better then anybody in the list because we use to be one of them. But the worst sin of all is unbelief!
Which fits all in the list!

I can understand that Jesus said that the only way to the father was through him, but not that he didn't see or didn't care about the consequences of those words.
Those words gave every christian the possibility to look down or to pity people that are not christians. "Because they are wrong, or because they are not enlightened or something like that"

The truth Jovaro is that it's you that looks down on the "scum" as you called it and us Christians also. You keep on saying we are not tolerate and Jesus was not tolerate. You called Christians ignorant who don't match what you think. You have placed yourself upon a high ladder not us!
It is you who look down on and pity Christians who are not as wise as you. Which is why the worst sin of all is unbelief!

But those people are absolutely sure that they are not wrong. They know they are right just as you know that you are right.
Those people don't need to be looked down upon nor do they want your pity.

We know we are right because the Spirit of God testifies to the fact.

[Jovaro]

I never called them scum, you did.

I was merely summarizing what you said. You didn't call them scum, you called them Hitler, Taliban, murderers and thiefs. If you put those together in one group, you can call that group scum.

The truth Jovaro is that it's you that looks down on the "scum" as you called it and us Christians also. You keep on saying we are not tolerate and Jesus was not tolerate. You called Christians ignorant who don't match what you think. You have placed yourself upon a high ladder not us!
It is you who look down on and pity Christians who are not as wise as you. Which is why the worst sin of all is unbelief!

I don't look down on people, pity them yes, but look down on them, no.
But yes, I do pity people that think others are not right because they are right and their truth is the only truth.

We know we are right because the Spirit of God testifies to the fact.

And other know they are right exactly the same way. Yet you will say that they are wrong.

[webmaster]

I never called them scum, you did.

I was merely summarizing what you said. You didn't call them scum, you called them Hitler, Taliban, murderers and thiefs. If you put those together in one group, you can call that group scum.

I am scum Jovaro!
I am a murderer, adulterer and even worse. I know who and what I am!
I am no better then Hitler, the Taliban, the murderer or the thieve!

But by the Grace of God who has shown me this I can say that it was only because of my un-belief that I was this way! I am continuing to grow in Lord. I am not perfect but by his Grace shall I finish this race because I would prefer for him to take my life then to fall back into un-belief. This prayer I have prayed for myself and I know by faith He will answer it and be faithful!

4. In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ,
5. To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus

.

[Jovaro]

That was not the point I was trying to make.

I was trying to say that Christians place themselves on a special place because they are right about religion and everyone else is not.

Even though all those other people know that they are right as well...

[beads]

I can understand that Jesus said that the only way to the father was through him, but not that he didn't see or didn't care about the consequences of those words.

You are correct, Jovaro, in saying that Jesus must have seen and cared about the consequences of those words. Jesus was telling us what God had ordained as the only way to get to heaven - through Jesus. What if Jesus hadn't said these words? Then you'd have a bunch of religions trying to do their own thing - none of which knew for sure if their way was the right way to get there. But that's not what you have today at all. Today, there is one religion that says the only way to heaven is through Jesus, and there are countless other religions, all of which have the basic belief of "do enough good works and you'll get there." Only one of these beliefs can be true, not both. Either Christianity is right or all the other religions are right. We believe that Christianity is right and we must be intolerant of all other religions because they all teach that works can get you to heaven. We believe we have the truth, and the truth cannot be tolerant. Do you think God will be tolerant at the end of the world when He judges everyone? Do you think He'll say, "I told you that the only way to please Me was to accept My Son. You didn't do that. But, ya' know what - I think I'll let you in anyway because you're such a nice guy."?

I was trying to say that Christians place themselves on a special place because they are right about religion and everyone else is not.

Even though all those other people know that they are right as well...

I'm sorry that you feel that Christians put themselves up on a pedastal because we claim to have the only truth. As webmaster pointed out, though, evolutionist do the same thing. While you personally may not look down on us, only pity, the scientific community in general does look down on us as ignorant. Regardless, when Christians preach what the Bible says, we are not trying to look down on anyone. We are simply trying to tell others what we believe that God has said about Jesus being the only way to heaven. Granted there will be a few Christians who take the road of looking down at others, but this is not what Jesus has commanded us to do, and I hope that you will not take the feelings of some Christians as representative of what Christianity is all about.

But yes, I do pity people that think others are not right because they are right and their truth is the only truth.

.... like Christians, Catholics, Muslims, Hindus, Mormons, Buddhists, Humanists, Atheists, etc ad infinitum... Who else does that leave? Every belief system has some element of "I'm right, you're wrong" in it. So you're basically saying you pity everyone, including yourself.

[Madeleine]

Today, there is one religion that says the only way to heaven is through Jesus, and there are countless other religions, all of which have the basic belief of "do enough good works and you'll get there."

What if you were a masochist who does good works? Would you go to Hell instead?

(feel free to ignore this post if you like)

[Jovaro]

Hej Beads,

When you accept Jesus and live by the rules in the Bible, doesn't that do the exact same as all the other religions?

Make you a nice guy who is doing good works?

The Bible teaches that you shouldn't steal, murder, that you should be nice to everyone including your enemies. Wouldn't that be what other religions call good works?

Not every religion is as intolerant as some others. As you can read in the Hinduism thread by gerani, hinduism teaches that there are lots of ways to come to god. One of those ways could be christianity, or islam, or..... or....

You won't hear me claim that all Christians are wrong either.

@Madeleine, I am unfamiliar with the word masochist, could you explain what that is? Thanks!

[beads]

When you accept Jesus and live by the rules in the Bible, doesn't that do the exact same as all the other religions?

No. Because all the other religions are trusting in those good works to save them. Christians do not trust their works to save them - we trust only in faith. We do works because we love God and want to serve and please Him because of the salvation He's given us, not because we hope we can do enough to get to heaven.

The Bible teaches that you shouldn't steal, murder, that you should be nice to everyone including your enemies. Wouldn't that be what other religions call good works?

Sure, but Christians don't do these good works in order to gain salvation, as I said above.

Not every religion is as intolerant as some others. As you can read in the Hinduism thread by gerani, hinduism teaches that there are lots of ways to come to god. One of those ways could be christianity, or islam, or..... or....

Did you not read any of my responses to gerani? It is an absolute contradiction for hinduism to say that Christianity is one of the ways to heaven, because Christianity teaches that it is the only way to heaven.

Let's do some substitution here:

1. We know that Hinduism says that all religions, including Christianity, are valid ways to get to heaven. So let's say the basic statement for Hinduism is "We believe that religion A, and religion B, and religion C are all valid ways to heaven."
2. All religions aside from Christianity are works-based, i.e. enough good works will get you to heaven.
3. Let's call any two random religions religion A and religion B, and Christianity religion C. So A=random works-based religion, B=random works-based religion, and C=Christianity.
4. We know that Christianity teaches that Jesus is the only way to heaven. So Christianity=Jesus is the only way. Thus C=Jesus is the only way.
5. By substitution, we can say that the basic statement for Hinduism is "We believe that a random works-based religion, and a random works-based religion, and Jesus is the only way are all valid ways to heaven."

Do you not see the contradiction? If you believe in something that says it is the only way to ge to heaven, you cannot also believe that there is some other way to get to heaven.

You won't hear me claim that all Christians are wrong either.

So which Christians are right, and what are they right about?

[Chrysoprasus]

I didn't take time to read all of the first post as that info is nothing new to me, and I agree that it is amazing to see to what degree God would go to keep us healthy and safe.
If one wants to believe Aliens gave us that knowledge, that's fine with me, just call that alien God. LOL
He isn't from this planet, so I guess you can logically do that.
Gina

[Nickatwarwick]

Just how many "truths" are there? Jovaro, is it safe to say you do not believe in an absolute truth?

It seems, correct me if I'm wrong, that you think a man can decide what he likes to include in his own personal truth, and that his truth is just as valid as the next man's.

To me using the word truth in this context isn't really correct. In most situations the truth is the right answer, i.e. a unique statement or stance which is deemed absolutely correct.

As Christians, we believe in one truth, detailed in the Bible, concerning our salvation. We justify this by having faith and experience of God. Whether this seems crazy to you is irrelevant. We base our opinion on a simple fact [and yes, to those who know God, it IS a fact].

What do you base your view on? What vindicates the idea of multiple, user-alterable truths? Is it because it's easier, nicer, and fits what you want to think? Or is there a more solid logical foundation hidden away somewhere which backs up your claims?


Nick

[Jovaro]

I do believe in an absolute truth, there is just no way to know what it is.

Every religion claims to have the truth and the main thing they have to prove it is belief and faith. And that are two things every religion has.

So what is the only right religion then? There is no way to know which one is more true so the only thing you can do is pick something, and have faith and believe that what you picked is the absolute truth.

Then why wouldn't you pick and have faith in something what fits you?

[Nickatwarwick]

That's cool, but wouldn't it be logically more sensible to plump for a truth with evidence [even if it's not "hard" evidence in you opinion] to back it up?

True Christians get their rules and doctrine straight out of the Bible. There is no room for error, or personal choice affecting the standard of the truth.
Personally I find the fact that I don't "want" as a human to have to do all the things my religion demands of me a good thing.

You are of course quite right about other religions saying the same. But before we get too deep about that, would you agree that it's best to follow an established religion with clear rules than to create your own amalgamation of doctrines and ideals? [Better in as much as if you had to put money on which was right, you'd go for the former].

Nick

[beads]

And that are two things every religion has.

But not every religion offers forgiveness of sins. Christianity does. When I ask God for forgiveness, my sins are wiped away. In all other religions, your sin remains, and you just have to hope you can do enough good works to outweigh the bad.

So what is the only right religion then? There is no way to know which one is more true so the only thing you can do is pick something, and have faith and believe that what you picked is the absolute truth.

If things are as you say, and there was no way of knowing what absolute truth was, how would we know if what we are doing was good?

Why would God not give us a way of knowing what truth is? Doesn't it make sense to think that God gave us a book so that we would know the truth, and in that book He prescribed the only way of getting to heaven - faith in Him? Doesn't it make sense that God wouldn't allow people into His heaven if they are unwilling to have faith in Him and in what He said, but are rather trying to get there by doing their own thing? Doesn't it make sense that God would have an enemy, and that this enemy would be trying really hard to get people to not follow God? Don't you think that the enemy has realized that a really good way to get people to not have faith in God is to get them to believe that they are good people and that if they do enough good things, surely God wouldn't deny them into heaven?

If you were God, which people would you let into heaven? The ones that had faith in you and in the work that you did to provide salvation for them, or the ones that just did a bunch of good things on their own, but completely rejected the one way that you told them they needed to follow or else they wouldn't be allowed in?

[Jovaro]

He didn't give one book but tons of them. Or maybe none at all. Because which book is truely from God? How can we tell...

And no, it doesn't make sense for an almighty being to have an enemy.

[newseed]

Peace Jovaro,

I do believe in an absolute truth, there is just no way to know what it is.

Just curious, since your believe in 'absolute truth' how will you ever know what 'absolute truth' is if you have no way of knowing what it is?

Thanks!

For The Harvest,
Eddie

[Jovaro]

Ah, easy question.

I won't

[newseed]

Peace Jovaro,

Ah, easy question.

I won't

So you could very well be missing the 'absolute truth' that is being preached here on this forum because you said yourself you have no way of knowing what it is.

In His Name,
Eddie

[Jovaro]

Correct, all of us could be missing the absolute truth..

[Nickatwarwick]

More worryingly, if we can never know this absolute truth, what's the point in anything? Why don't we all just top ourselves here and now, to save the misery of crawling through life groping for answers we're doomed never to reach?

Sorry if this sounds a bit pessimistic, but England have just been ROBBED in Euro2004 and I am NOT amused. The Dutch better beat the Portugese in the semi Jovaro, or I will be VERY UNHAPPY!!

Nick

[Jovaro]

LOL

Well I for one am not going to top myself, because I think life is beautiful. Wouldn't want to miss it for anything.

We'll have to get past the swedes first Nick

[newseed]

Peace Jovaro,

Correct, all of us could be missing the absolute truth..

If you are refering to Christians too, then that is only your opinion. However, this is fact to you because you have claimed that you do not know the 'absolute truth'.

I pray that you will find the truth.

Glory to His Name,
Eddie

[Chrysoprasus]

He didn't give one book but tons of them. Or maybe none at all. Because which book is truely from God? How can we tell...

And no, it doesn't make sense for an almighty being to have an enemy.

In a nutshell...
We can tell by a combination of common sense, history, and research.
Common sense: We know that truth exists.

History: There is a record amassed through the ages, witnessed, and documented throughout the course of time.

Research: Research will show us that the documented miracles, happenings, and witnesses in the documented and passed down record is true, as are the prophecies.

Chrys

[Jovaro]

To eddie:
That was indeed just my opinion. I didn't mean to state it as a fact

To chrys:
We don't know there is an absolute truth, we hope believe and have faith that there is one.
Ever seen the Matrix. If (really big if) we would all be in a Matrix like situation, how would we know that all what we were doing wasn't really happening?

[beads]

We don't know there is an absolute truth, we hope believe and have faith that there is one.

1+1=2 is not an absolute truth?

Let me ask you this: Do you believe there is nothing that is absolutely false?

[Jovaro]

1+1 is something between 1,0 and 2,8 if I am not mistaken.

As far as we know 1+1=2, but are we the all-knowing creatures here? I didn't think so. Maybe god is smiling at us right now because we still haven't figured out that 1+1 is actually 5.

I don't believe you can be sure of anything being absolutely true. Therefore I don't believe you can be absolutely sure of something being absolutely false.

[Omega]

1+1 is something between 1,0 and 2,8 if I am not mistaken.

As far as we know 1+1=2, but are we the all-knowing creatures here? I didn't think so. Maybe god is smiling at us right now because we still haven't figured out that 1+1 is actually 5.

I don't believe you can be sure of anything being absolutely true. Therefore I don't believe you can be absolutely sure of something being absolutely false.

Hello Jovaro!

When you had replied to beads' post, were you absolutely positive that it was you who were typing the response?
...... .. .

And if it was you who was typing, does that mean that it is absolutely True that you were the one who was typing?
..... .. ...

God Bless!

[newseed]

I absolutely believe that we absolutely know nothing about anything but I could be wrong and I might be absolutely misled to believe that I am absolutely right but then again, I could be absolutely correct if only I know that I am not absolutey nuts. Of course, who knows what a nut is if you are not absolutely sure if you know the absolute truth?

Sooo....does anyone absolutely know what I am talking about? Are you absolutely sure?



Absolutely yours,
Eddie

[Jovaro]

Hej,

No I am not absolutely sure that this is me typing. But to prevent situations like Eddie describes, I assume it is me.
That is what we, humans, do, we assume things to make things understandable.

In the ancient days people assumed volcanoes erupted because of the wrath of a god. Nowadays we assume that it has to do with magma and movements of the magma.

We don't know things, we assume things and we can belief those things are truth and we can have faith that they are truth. But we cannot know if they are truth.

[Nickatwarwick]

However, we as humans can work out a list of assumptions, or axioms. Take the Archimedian axiom, which effectively states that given any number there is always another number bigger than it. Or the axiom which states a positive number multiplied by another positive number is also a positive.

These statements are by definition "unprovable", but to say they aren't true reduces us to pointless circular arguments. In any logical argument there has to be a starting point. Otherwise all arguments would be inane and ridiculous. So we have to a assume that there is a logical, absolute truth to start us all off on our discussions. Yes?

Nick

[Jovaro]

Yes, there is an absolute truth.

[Omega]

I absolutely believe that we absolutely know nothing about anything but I could be wrong and I might be absolutely misled to believe that I am absolutely right but then again, I could be absolutely correct if only I know that I am not absolutey nuts. Of course, who knows what a nut is if you are not absolutely sure if you know the absolute truth?

Sooo....does anyone absolutely know what I am talking about? Are you absolutely sure?



Absolutely yours,
Eddie

Eddie my brother in Christ!
One thing that I know is for sure and the ABSOLUTE TRUTH! and nothing will ever take this from me and Jesus said unto His disciples and those who has ears to hear:My sheep HEAR my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. I and my Father are one.

John 8:32 - And ye shall know the TRUTH, and the TRUTH shall make you free.

If any man or woman is not absolutely certain with the verse above then they must examine themselves very carefully, because in these last days is a Spirit of Doubt and Uncertainty that is lingering in many websites regarding or preaching or teaching the Absolute Truth and this must be stopped.

God Bless!

[newseed]

I absolutely believe that we absolutely know nothing about anything but I could be wrong and I might be absolutely misled to believe that I am absolutely right but then again, I could be absolutely correct if only I know that I am not absolutey nuts. Of course, who knows what a nut is if you are not absolutely sure if you know the absolute truth?

Sooo....does anyone absolutely know what I am talking about? Are you absolutely sure?



Absolutely yours,
Eddie

Eddie my brother in Christ!
One thing that I know is for sure and the ABSOLUTE TRUTH! and nothing will ever take this from me and Jesus said unto His disciples and those who has ears to hear:My sheep HEAR my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. I and my Father are one.

John 8:32 - And ye shall know the TRUTH, and the TRUTH shall make you free.

If any man or woman is not absolutely certain with the verse above then they must examine themselves very carefully, because in these last days is a Spirit of Doubt and Uncertainty that is lingering in many websites regarding or preaching or teaching the Absolute Truth and this must be stopped.

God Bless!

I concur! My silly side came out and I just had to post it...I think? I might be absolutely wrong but I am absolutely sure that I typed it. Are you absolutely sure your read it?

One thing I am absolutely sure of....God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Ok...I am done being silly.

BIC,
Eddie

[beads]

Yes, there is an absolute truth.

Good, we finally agree on that!

But you still don't believe there is a way to know that absolute truth, right? You believe it exists, but knowing what it is is a different issue?

[Jovaro]

Yes, there is an absolute truth.

Good, we finally agree on that!

But you still don't believe there is a way to know that absolute truth, right? You believe it exists, but knowing what it is is a different issue?

Correct