Health and Religion

[Indijanos]

https://scontent.fadl1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/15356667_1322081751199640_7210045300246232144_n.jpg?oh=421ba4583da22e3cc4121e446462d3bf&oe=58E9C88A

Perhaps when you start to formally accept the existence of God, then I might answer your question here.

So you're saying that you'll be forgiven and saved after your death but not while you're alive? After death.. when you die and and no way to return or communicate with the people that are alive. Are you that ignorant not to get it?

Don't understand how religious leaders can inspire people in the head with such nonsense? The person lives in order to live after death,but no evidence that it is really not.

Those can mainly be people who suffered a lot or suffering or maybe had nothing else to turn to, devastated in life so they turn to cults and cults are just waiting for people like those, easy to manipulate and deceive.

[CoinCube]

Deuteronomy 14:8
"The pig is also unclean; although it has a divided hoof, it does not chew the cud. You are not to eat their meat or touch their carcasses."


Processed meat 'early death' link
http://www.bbc.com/news/health-21682779

Sausages, ham, bacon and other processed meats appear to increase the risk of dying young, a study of half a million people across Europe suggests.

It concluded diets high in processed meats were linked to cardiovascular disease, cancer and early deaths.
The researchers, writing in the journal BMC Medicine, said salt and chemicals used to preserve the meat may damage health.
...
It showed people who ate a lot of processed meat were also more likely to smoke, be obese and have other behaviours known to damage health.

However, the researchers said even after those risk factors were accounted for, processed meat still damaged health.
One in every 17 people followed in the study died. However, those eating more than 160g of processed meat a day - roughly two sausages and a slice of bacon - were 44% more likely to die over a typical follow-up time of 12.7 years than those eating about 20g.
...
"Something has been done to it to extend its shelf life, or to change its taste, or to make it more palatable in some way... and this could be a traditional process like curing or salting."

She said even good quality ham or sausages were still classed as processed meat, while homemade burgers using fresh meat were not.

Processed meats do cause cancer - WHO
http://www.bbc.com/news/health-34615621

Processed meats - such as bacon, sausages and ham - do cause cancer, according to the World Health Organization (WHO).

Its report said 50g of processed meat a day - less than two slices of bacon - increased the chance of developing colorectal cancer by 18%.

Processed meat includes bacon, sausages, hot dogs, salami, corned beef, beef jerky and ham as well as canned meat and meat-based sauces.

"For an individual, the risk of developing colorectal (bowel) cancer because of their consumption of processed meat remains small, but this risk increases with the amount of meat consumed," Dr Kurt Straif from the WHO said.

Processed meat 'could be bad for asthma'
http://www.bbc.com/news/health-38370057

The survey looked specifically at asthma symptoms - breathlessness, wheeze, chest tightness - and intake of cured meat: a single portion was two slices of ham, one sausage or two slices of salami.

Among the people with asthma, higher meat consumption was linked with a worsening of their lung symptoms.
People who said they consumed more than four portions a week - eight slices of ham or four sausages, for example - had the biggest deterioration of their asthma by the end of the study.

The experts stress that their work cannot prove diet is definitely to blame. There are lots of factors in a person's life that can make their asthma worse.

The researchers tried to eliminate the most obvious ones, controlling for things like obesity, and the link between processed meat and worsening asthma remained.

[Roger Burton]

Everyone are smart. It depends of the practice each person has for his own. Religion it's just a a help to be a better person, but still it depends on the person. I don't that one religion is ''smarter'' than an other, I think people are all equal to make the sames mistakes and equal to do things right.

[TicTacTic]

Everyone are smart. It depends of the practice each person has for his own. Religion it's just a a help to be a better person, but still it depends on the person. I don't that one religion is ''smarter'' than an other, I think people are all equal to make the sames mistakes and equal to do things right.

Religion in General is irrelevant to human health. Moreover it prevents and actually harmful to health. How many people were hoping for a prayer and as a result launched the disease and lost his life.

[CoinCube]

Religion in General is irrelevant to human health. Moreover it prevents and actually harmful to health. How many people were hoping for a prayer and as a result launched the disease and lost his life.

I recommend going through some of my prior posts in this thread. I have highlighted numerous studies that examine various aspects of the relationship between religion and human health.

The data available clearly shows that religion is both highly relevant and highly beneficial to human health.

[kodoll]

Religion in General is irrelevant to human health. Moreover it prevents and actually harmful to health. How many people were hoping for a prayer and as a result launched the disease and lost his life.

I recommend going through some of my prior posts in this thread. I have highlighted numerous studies that examine various aspects of the relationship between religion and human health.

The data available clearly shows that religion is both highly relevant and highly beneficial to human health.

Now a lot bought research. There are studies that talk about the placebo effect but its effectiveness is exaggerated. Moreover, no one investigated the damage from this effect. I am sure that health is the prerogative of physicians.

[kodoll]

Religion in General is irrelevant to human health. Moreover it prevents and actually harmful to health. How many people were hoping for a prayer and as a result launched the disease and lost his life.

I recommend going through some of my prior posts in this thread. I have highlighted numerous studies that examine various aspects of the relationship between religion and human health.

The data available clearly shows that religion is both highly relevant and highly beneficial to human health.

Are you sure?  The Muslim driver in Berlin was definitely not well because of his religion.

It's a little different. Do this terrorist killer and his victims religion was a direct threat to health and life, but in the subject it most likely was about the fact that religion allows you to heal sick people. I doubt it very much.

[iamnotback]

Per my definition of the leftist religion, all leftists are atheists whether they admit it or not, because they w(h)or(e)ship the State instead of a God (or NATURAL LAW), as the lord pointed out in 1 Samuel 8 of the Bible. Thus more than 50% of the western world's population are atheists.

You leftists will reap the evil that you are sowing:

My strong distaste for the leftist religion is because they attempt to bind those outside their choice of religion to obligations that their religion deems important. They are not minding their own business. Any religion which does not respect the freewill of others to choose their own value system, is IMO the greatest evil.

[iamnotback]

Religion in General is irrelevant to human health. Moreover it prevents and actually harmful to health. How many people were hoping for a prayer and as a result launched the disease and lost his life.

I recommend going through some of my prior posts in this thread. I have highlighted numerous studies that examine various aspects of the relationship between religion and human health.

The data available clearly shows that religion is both highly relevant and highly beneficial to human health.

Here is a counter example:

I really "enjoyed" (more correct term may be 'riveted by') this movie Finding Home last night:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3319398/videoplayer/vi2310911513?ref_=tt_ov_vi  (there is a trailer video)
http://www.findinghomefilm.com/about/film/
http://corneredglobe.com/finding-home-cambodias-prostitution-epidemic/

It is available on Netflix.

It was interesting on many levels, most of which is just the emotional connection to the girls and their sadness, hardships, and triumphs. But it was also interesting the negative role that religion played in their debacle.

Please don't claim by implication that the Spanish Inquisition and the Holocaust were healthy.

Afaics, you are moralizing and judging... Please read Jesus's wisdom in Matthew 7.

 ... But it does have the the downside that they alienate the goyim and there has been at least one purge already because the Jews are seen as outsiders or parasites. I am not saying I agree with the Nazis but it is a risk one takes when choosing to be a Jew. So if you can judge me and say that my problems in life are due to my choices in life including my choice of value system, then I can also turn that mirror back on the Jews and say they reaped what they sowed in Nazi Germany. I am not that judgmental so as to blame their deaths on their choice of religion, but if you are going to really want to look at the speck of dust in my eye, perhaps you may want to check if there is plank of wood in your own...

[iamnotback]

Deuteronomy 14:8
"The pig is also unclean; although it has a divided hoof, it does not chew the cud. You are not to eat their meat or touch their carcasses."


Processed meat 'early death' link
http://www.bbc.com/news/health-21682779

As an applied mathematician, you know that correlation does not prove causality. One correlation wouldn't mean the Bible is an effective dietary guide book for every climate, culture and situation.

Also processed meat is not the same as pig. Processed meat is more unhealthy due to the nitrate chemicals added. Also meat in general is more unhealthy when it is overly cooked, stored for too long, etc..

Also after Noah's ark, the Bible permits us to eat pig.


Generally I think having self-discipline and avoiding activities that religion typically disallows is probably more healthy especially for the offspring. But taking it down to the level of diet is a bit ridiculous. Except I would agree that many youth especially have horrendous diets these days, so if a strict religion could stop them from building bad habits that would be more healthy.

[CoinCube]

Deuteronomy 14:8
"The pig is also unclean; although it has a divided hoof, it does not chew the cud. You are not to eat their meat or touch their carcasses."


Processed meat 'early death' link
http://www.bbc.com/news/health-21682779

Sausages, ham, bacon and other processed meats appear to increase the risk of dying young, a study of half a million people across Europe suggests.

It concluded diets high in processed meats were linked to cardiovascular disease, cancer and early deaths.
The researchers, writing in the journal BMC Medicine, said salt and chemicals used to preserve the meat may damage health.
...
It showed people who ate a lot of processed meat were also more likely to smoke, be obese and have other behaviours known to damage health.

However, the researchers said even after those risk factors were accounted for, processed meat still damaged health.
One in every 17 people followed in the study died. However, those eating more than 160g of processed meat a day - roughly two sausages and a slice of bacon - were 44% more likely to die over a typical follow-up time of 12.7 years than those eating about 20g.
...
"Something has been done to it to extend its shelf life, or to change its taste, or to make it more palatable in some way... and this could be a traditional process like curing or salting."

She said even good quality ham or sausages were still classed as processed meat, while homemade burgers using fresh meat were not.

Processed meats do cause cancer - WHO
http://www.bbc.com/news/health-34615621

Processed meats - such as bacon, sausages and ham - do cause cancer, according to the World Health Organization (WHO).

Its report said 50g of processed meat a day - less than two slices of bacon - increased the chance of developing colorectal cancer by 18%.

Processed meat includes bacon, sausages, hot dogs, salami, corned beef, beef jerky and ham as well as canned meat and meat-based sauces.

"For an individual, the risk of developing colorectal (bowel) cancer because of their consumption of processed meat remains small, but this risk increases with the amount of meat consumed," Dr Kurt Straif from the WHO said.

Processed meat 'could be bad for asthma'
http://www.bbc.com/news/health-38370057

The survey looked specifically at asthma symptoms - breathlessness, wheeze, chest tightness - and intake of cured meat: a single portion was two slices of ham, one sausage or two slices of salami.

Among the people with asthma, higher meat consumption was linked with a worsening of their lung symptoms.
People who said they consumed more than four portions a week - eight slices of ham or four sausages, for example - had the biggest deterioration of their asthma by the end of the study.

The experts stress that their work cannot prove diet is definitely to blame. There are lots of factors in a person's life that can make their asthma worse.

The researchers tried to eliminate the most obvious ones, controlling for things like obesity, and the link between processed meat and worsening asthma remained.

As an applied mathematician, you know that correlation does not prove causality. One correlation wouldn't mean the Bible is an effective dietary guide book for every climate, culture and situation.

Also processed meat is not the same as pig. Processed meat is more unhealthy due to the nitrate chemicals added. Also meat in general is more unhealthy when it is overly cooked, stored for too long, etc..

Also after Noah's ark, the Bible permits us to eat pig.

Generally I think having self-discipline and avoiding activities that religion typically disallows is probably more healthy especially for the offspring. But taking it down to the level of diet is a bit ridiculous. Except I would agree that many youth especially have horrendous diets these days, so if a strict religion could stop them from building bad habits that would be more healthy.

I understand your point that correlation does not prove causality. That said I find this particular coloration quite interesting. Even today we do not really know for sure why pork appears to have such a significant health effect. One of the scientist involved said the following:

Ursula Arens from the British Dietetic Association told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that putting fresh meat through a mincer did not make it processed meat. "Something has been done to it to extend its shelf life, or to change its taste, or to make it more palatable in some way... and this could be a traditional process like curing or salting." She said even good quality ham or sausages were still classed as processed meat, while homemade burgers using fresh meat were not.

In regards to the Christian tradition allowing pork consumption I believe that comes not from the time of Noah but later from Acts in the New Testament. However, I have not looked into it extensively and their may be other sources.

Why can Christians eat pork & shellfish, Muslims eat shellfish, but Jews cannot?
https://www.quora.com/Why-can-Christians-eat-pork-shellfish-Muslims-eat-shellfish-but-Jews-cannot

No one mentioned Peter's revelation!  So when Christ died, Peter was the senior apostle and most religions believe that he was therefore the President of the New Testament church.  Catholics call him the first Pope; evangelicals may prefer Paul's zeal, but still defer to Peter in authority (as did Paul).  So by definition Jesus "fulfilled" the Mosaic law, but there were still debates as to what that meant.  To this day there are religions who throw out the whole Old Testament, and others who still keep a Saturday sabbath.  Peter erred on the side of caution and until revelation was received otherwise insisted everyone stay kosher, and for a short time even mandated circumcision.  Until...

So Jesus ascended into Heaven in Acts 1.  Shortly afterwards--nine chapters later--in Acts 10:11 (http://lds.org/scriptures/nt/act...), Peter had a vision of a great feast prepared with both kosher and "unclean" food.  God commanded him to eat it; Peter refused; God told him "what God has now cleansed thou shalt not call unclean." (http://www.blueletterbible.org/B...).  Most Christians believe that this experience proves that Kosher was one of the elements of the Mosaic law that was completed by the atonement of Jesus Christ.

[miscreanity]

In regards to the Christian tradition allowing pork consumption I believe that comes not from the time of Noah but later from Acts in the New Testament. However, I have not looked into it extensively and their may be other sources.

Why can Christians eat pork & shellfish, Muslims eat shellfish, but Jews cannot?
https://www.quora.com/Why-can-Christians-eat-pork-shellfish-Muslims-eat-shellfish-but-Jews-cannot

No one mentioned Peter's revelation!  So when Christ died, Peter was the senior apostle and most religions believe that he was therefore the President of the New Testament church.  Catholics call him the first Pope; evangelicals may prefer Paul's zeal, but still defer to Peter in authority (as did Paul).  So by definition Jesus "fulfilled" the Mosaic law, but there were still debates as to what that meant.  To this day there are religions who throw out the whole Old Testament, and others who still keep a Saturday sabbath.  Peter erred on the side of caution and until revelation was received otherwise insisted everyone stay kosher, and for a short time even mandated circumcision.  Until...

So Jesus ascended into Heaven in Acts 1.  Shortly afterwards--nine chapters later--in Acts 10:11 (http://lds.org/scriptures/nt/act...), Peter had a vision of a great feast prepared with both kosher and "unclean" food.  God commanded him to eat it; Peter refused; God told him "what God has now cleansed thou shalt not call unclean." (http://www.blueletterbible.org/B...).  Most Christians believe that this experience proves that Kosher was one of the elements of the Mosaic law that was completed by the atonement of Jesus Christ.

The vision appears symbolic, indicating that the gentiles or goyim were no longer unclean or abhorrent. I find that Paul's writings from 1 Corinthians 10:23 on are more relevant to this.

All things are lawful for me, but not all things are helpful; all things are lawful for me, but not all things edify.

It is not the food that is a concern since Christ was sacrificed, but the respect and love for others that matters. This is much like inhaling a medium-rare burger in front of a vegan could be rude to the point of offense; consideration of others is the primary focus.

Much of the Old Testament, Deuteronomy in particular, struck me as a survival guide for a society. Numerous points of instruction were prudent forms of disease management and prevention considering the conditions of the time. I consider the change this way: with the practices ingrained in their cultural mindset and the people expanded in number, threats of eradication waned and the society as a whole matured to a point where it could be discerning with Jesus' guidance.

[BADecker]

In regards to the Christian tradition allowing pork consumption I believe that comes not from the time of Noah but later from Acts in the New Testament. However, I have not looked into it extensively and their may be other sources.

Why can Christians eat pork & shellfish, Muslims eat shellfish, but Jews cannot?
https://www.quora.com/Why-can-Christians-eat-pork-shellfish-Muslims-eat-shellfish-but-Jews-cannot

No one mentioned Peter's revelation!  So when Christ died, Peter was the senior apostle and most religions believe that he was therefore the President of the New Testament church.  Catholics call him the first Pope; evangelicals may prefer Paul's zeal, but still defer to Peter in authority (as did Paul).  So by definition Jesus "fulfilled" the Mosaic law, but there were still debates as to what that meant.  To this day there are religions who throw out the whole Old Testament, and others who still keep a Saturday sabbath.  Peter erred on the side of caution and until revelation was received otherwise insisted everyone stay kosher, and for a short time even mandated circumcision.  Until...

So Jesus ascended into Heaven in Acts 1.  Shortly afterwards--nine chapters later--in Acts 10:11 (http://lds.org/scriptures/nt/act...), Peter had a vision of a great feast prepared with both kosher and "unclean" food.  God commanded him to eat it; Peter refused; God told him "what God has now cleansed thou shalt not call unclean." (http://www.blueletterbible.org/B...).  Most Christians believe that this experience proves that Kosher was one of the elements of the Mosaic law that was completed by the atonement of Jesus Christ.

The vision appears symbolic, indicating that the gentiles or goyim were no longer unclean or abhorrent. I find that Paul's writings from 1 Corinthians 10:23 on are more relevant to this.

All things are lawful for me, but not all things are helpful; all things are lawful for me, but not all things edify.

It is not the food that is a concern since Christ was sacrificed, but the respect and love for others that matters. This is much like inhaling a medium-rare burger in front of a vegan could be rude to the point of offense; consideration of others is the primary focus.

Much of the Old Testament, Deuteronomy in particular, struck me as a survival guide for a society. Numerous points of instruction were prudent forms of disease management and prevention considering the conditions of the time. I consider the change this way: with the practices ingrained in their cultural mindset and the people expanded in number, threats of eradication waned and the society as a whole matured to a point where it could be discerning with Jesus' guidance.

Are you sure?  Read it again.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1367154.0

What? Trying to cast doubt in his mind? For a joker who admits to accepting fictional science theory, rather than factual science law, you sure are an outspoken little ding-dong.

Which funny farm are you at again?

[CoinCube]

Much of the Old Testament, Deuteronomy in particular, struck me as a survival guide for a society. Numerous points of instruction were prudent forms of disease management and prevention considering the conditions of the time. I consider the change this way: with the practices ingrained in their cultural mindset and the people expanded in number, threats of eradication waned and the society as a whole matured to a point where it could be discerning with Jesus' guidance.

Are you sure?  Read it again.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1367154.0

Lets take a deeper look.

Maimonides on the Torah's Dietary Laws
https://www.mhcny.org/parasha/1026.pdf

This week's essay will focus on one brief passage in Maimonides' Guide to the
Perplexed (3:48), where he advances a particularly surprising theory to explain the rational
basis for the Torah's dietary laws: "I maintain that the food which is forbidden by the Law is
unwholesome." Maimonides appears to base the entire system of the Torah's dietary code on
medical concerns, claiming that the foods prohibited for consumption are unhealthful. He
observes that "there is nothing among the forbidden kinds of food whose injurious character is
doubted" among the professional healthcare community of his day, "except pork and fat."

I find this argument overall very interesting. Let's look at a few of these restriction.

1) Grape products made by non-Jews may not be eaten. Sounds strange right? How could that have anything to do with health. Oh wait!

That does not look very sanitary. Especially when one considers that the gentiles in the middle ages rarely bathed and underpants were not invented until the 13th centurary.

2) Of the animals that may be eaten, the birds and mammals must be killed in accordance with Jewish law.
These are all very strict and pretty much optimize the chance of having a health food source. Kosher poultry cannot show any signs of being pecked, sick or injured. The birds are killed with a slit to the neck, allowing the blood to drain out. They’re never plunged into hot water (a theoretical source of bacterial contamination), but are washed in cold water before being soaked, salted and washed again. Experts in the koshering process say the extensive use of salt helps kill bacteria.

To be kosher, cows must be younger than 30 months. Dairy cows are never used. Kosher laws preclude using a stun gun or a bullet to the brain, which could scatter brain and nerve tissue (a source of mad cow disease). The animal must be hand-slaughtered by slitting its neck. Religious inspectors look for signs of broken bones, disease or scarred or punctured organs, which disqualify the animal. Downer cattle are never used, and about only 40% of healthy cattle qualify as kosher. Meat can be taken from only the forequarters; it is then soaked and salted to draw out the blood. All blood must be drained from meat and poultry or broiled out of it before it is eaten.

3) Pork is forbidden.
We covered some of the reasons why pork may be unhealthy above reasons that humanity did not know or understand until the last 10 years! However, there are other reasons why pork or specifically pigs may be dangerous to humans. Pigs have a respiratory system that is very similar to our own close enough to ours to allow diseases to jump the species barrier causing pandemics. This is probably how the 1918 influenza pandamic got started which killed 50-100 million people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1918_flu_pandemic#Hypotheses_about_source

Investigative work by a British team led by virologist John Oxford[19] of St Bartholomew's Hospital and the Royal London Hospital in 1999 identified the major troop staging and hospital camp in Étaples, France, as almost certainly being the center of the 1918 flu pandemic. A significant precursor virus, harbored in birds, mutated to pigs that were kept near the front.[20]

[CoinCube]

You guys are funny.  Taking your dietary recommendations from bronze age book.

What is next? Are you going to perform some old fashioned blood letting on your kids when they will get a common cold?

Bronze age Jews knew very little so stop this nonsense.

Yes the Bronze age Jews should have known very little. That is the point and why it is quite interesting that their holy scriptures contain so many rules. Rules that indicate an unusually high understanding of hygiene.

There is a book that has been published on this topic.

The Healthy Jew: The Symbiosis of Judaism and Modern Medicine
https://www.amazon.com/Healthy-Jew-Symbiosis-Judaism-Medicine/dp/0521877180

The Healthy Jew traces the culturally revealing story of how Moses, the rabbis, and other Jewish thinkers came to be understood as medical authorities in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Such a radically different interpretation, by scholars and popular writers alike, resulted in new, widespread views on the salubrious effects of, for example, circumcision, Jewish sexual purity laws, and kosher foods. The Healthy Jew explores this interpretative tradition in the light of a number of broader debates over 'civilization' and 'culture,'

[CoinCube]

And you think they had this knowledge from God, right?  The same God who told them how to properly beat slaves and how to treat gentiles?

You are scrapping the bottom of the barrel.

Holy books my ass.

I think there is enough to indicate that something interesting may be going on.
Here is another example: The first thing Jews are required to do after they get up in the morning is to wash their hands.

Washing the Hands
http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/260663/jewish/The-Laws-Upon-Awakening-in-the-Morning.htm

• One should not walk more then four cubits from his bed before washing his hands upon arising in the morning (Netilat Yadayim or Negel Vasser)3. Many have the custom not to touch their clothes or walk even the four cubits from their bed. To be able to do this, many prepare on the side of their beds water in a cup and basin prior to retiring at night. The Alter Rebbe writes that one who is G‑d fearing should follow the directives of the Zohar.

• Prior to washing one's hands in the morning one should not touch the following with his hands: His mouth, eyes, nose, ears or any other part of the body which has openings. Neither should one touch food or drink and clothing. Women in particular must be careful in regard to touching food prior to washing their hands, since they handle most of the food at home. Likewise, one must be very cautious not to dip his fingers inadvertently into the water he will be using for the washing of their hands, because by dipping the unwashed finger into the water he has made the water unclean and unfit for washing4.

Is God the source? Well that is one possibility but not the only one. Other possibilities are natural selection as other religious groups with less healthy habits may simply have gone extinct while the healthier Jews survived. I can also think of other speculative possibilities as well.

Edit:
Regarding Slavery in the Bible I addressed this topic elsewhere:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1584676.msg15925386#msg15925386
  
 

[CoinCube]

Pediatricians Decide Boys Are Better Off Circumcised Than Not
http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2012/08/27/159955340/pediatricians-decide-boys-are-better-off-circumcised-than-not

The American Academy of Pediatrics announced its first major shift on circumcision in more than a decade, concluding that the health benefits of the procedure clearly outweigh any risks.

"There is clear evidence that supports the health benefits of circumcision," said Susan Blank, who led the 14-member task force that formulated the new policy being published in the journal Pediatrics.

The statement, and accompanying technical report, marks the first revision of the organization's position since 1999, when the academy backed away from circumcision. At that time, the group, which represents about 60,000 pediatricians nationwide, concluded that there was no clear evidence for or against circumcising newborns. The group affirmed that position in 2005.

Since then, the popularity of circumcision in the United States has declined. Only about 56 percent of newborn males are circumcised.

The academy's task force spent seven years combing through the latest research, analyzing more than a thousand studies. Their conclusion?

For starters, Blank says, circumcision helps baby boys pretty much immediately.

"The health benefits of male circumcision include a drop in the risk of urinary tract infection in the first year of life by up to 90 percent," she says.

But there's a much bigger reason to do it, Blank said. Circumcised males are far less likely to get infected with a long list of sexually transmitted diseases.

"It drops the risk of heterosexual HIV acquisition by about 60 percent. It drops the risk of human papillomavirus [HPV], herpes virus and other infectious genital ulcers," she says.

It also reduces the chances that men will spread HPV to their wives and girlfriends, protecting them from getting cervical cancer.

"We've reviewed the data and, you know, we have gone through them with a fine-tooth comb, and the data are pretty convincing," she says.

Critics, however, were not convinced. They liken the procedure to female genital mutilation.

"We have no right as parents or as physicians or adults to strap them down and chop off a normal part of their body. To do that is a human rights violation and an ethical travesty," says Georgeanne Chapin of the anti-circumcision group Intact America.

Chapin and other critics argue that the scientific evidence is questionable. For one thing, the studies about HIV have only been done in Africa, where AIDS is much more common among heterosexuals.

"They're cherry-picking their evidence," she says. "They act as though there's this huge body of literature. It's all the same couple of studies that have been regurgitated and reprogrammed. Over the past 150 years, all kinds of medical benefits have been proposed as resulting from cutting off the foreskin, and they have all been disproven."

Critics also question the safety of the procedure, saying too many boys are damaged for life by botched circumcisions.

But many experts say the academy is making the right call. They dismiss any comparison to female genital mutilation as grossly misleading and say male circumcision is about as safe as any procedure could be.

Some think the academy's position is long overdue, and that the group should have gone even further and more forcefully recommended circumcision.

"I think that all healthy newborn babies should be circumcised," says Edgar Schoen, a professor emeritus at the University of California, San Francisco. "I feel about newborn circumcision the way I do about immunization: It's a potent preventive health procedure that gives you a health advantage."

For its part, the pediatricians group hopes the new recommendations will encourage more parents to circumcise their sons — and more insurance plans to pay for it. As Shots reported last week, a lot of state Medicaid programs have stopped covering circumcision.

"Those families who choose circumcision should have access to circumcision. Cost should not be a barrier," Blank says.

The federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has been promising for years now to issue the government's first guidelines about circumcision. But the CDC keeps delaying it and still has not said when that will happen.

[qwik2learn]

Oh really, CoinCube?

Does the Bible ever say that circumcision has health benefits?

No. The Bible never makes such a claim. Jewish authorities hesitate to circumcise a baby if two previous sons had died from circumcision. Even today, circumcisions lead to haemorrhages, infections and sometimes even death.

There is NO "proven" link between circumcision and better health. In fact, cutting a baby boy's genitals creates immediate health risks.

Jesus contrasted circumcision (cutting off foreskins) with his own healing, which made a man 'whole and complete.' Jesus' conclusion, not to judge by appearances, also hit the mark, for his critics rejected those who were not circumcised.

http://www.cirp.org/pages/cultural/glass2/

It was not done for health or sanitary reasons, but to appease what they perceived to be an angry, bloodthirsty god.

The mutilation that occurs today involves ripping away and cutting off the entire foreskin – a skinning of about half of the penis – and exposing what was intended to be an internal organ. This method began about 150 years after Jesus’ death in an effort by Jewish authorities to further distinguish Jews from uncircumcised Greeks.

The really creepy stuff started happening after 500 C.E. when a creepy book called the Talmud essentially replaced the Torah. I haven’t had the fortitude to look into this thoroughly yet, but apparently it is tradition for the Jewish mohels or “circumcisers” to suck the infant’s wounded, bloody penis after mutilating it without anesthesia. This is not a joke. This is a real practice that happens every day in America. You can even read about it in the New York Times.

The good news is not all Jews are sick, sadistic pedophiles. There is a growing movement of “Jews Against Circumcision.”

“Do not be afraid of divine punishment,” their website says. “God did not mandate circumcision. In the original version of the Torah, the book of J, circumcision is not even mentioned. Fallible men devised circumcision as a way to curb masturbation. Even Rabbi Maimonides acknowledged this fact.”

I haven’t had a chance to look into Islamic circumcision – but here is a website saying circumcision has nothing to do with the Quran, and that Allah hates such wickedness.

The bottom line is I don’t believe in a god who commands people to torture their children, steal their body parts or deny them the ability to experience pleasure. If you do, fine. But keep your sick beliefs in your head, because if you act on them – even after knowing the harm you’re causing – you should go to jail for life.

http://returntonow.net/2016/03/02/circumcision-is-child-abuse-and-torture/

[CoinCube]

Oh really, CoinCube?

Does the Bible ever say that circumcision has health benefits?

No. The Bible never makes such a claim. Jewish authorities hesitate to circumcise a baby if two previous sons had died from circumcision. Even today, circumcisions lead to haemorrhages, infections and sometimes even death.

There is NO "proven" link between circumcision and better health. In fact, cutting a baby boy's genitals creates immediate health risks.

Jesus contrasted circumcision (cutting off foreskins) with his own healing, which made a man 'whole and complete.' Jesus' conclusion, not to judge by appearances, also hit the mark, for his critics rejected those who were not circumcised.

http://www.cirp.org/pages/cultural/glass2/

It was not done for health or sanitary reasons, but to appease what they perceived to be an angry, bloodthirsty god.
...

The Old Testament/Torah makes no claim regarding circumcision and health.

"Every male among you shall be circumcised. You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you. For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised" [Gen 17:10]

There is no doubt that there is real and immediate risk with any surgical procedure including so called "minor" procedures like circumcision.

The American Academy of Pediatricians (AAP) after reviewing the data on this topic including the data on risks reported that the health benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks. This was in 2012 which was their most recent update on this issue. It is of course possible that they were wrong or the data they reviewed was flawed.

What is also very interesting is the Biblical/Torah command to wait unti exactly 8 days after birth before circumcision. Newborn levels of clotting factors peak on the 8th day.  

Clotting Factors Peak 8 Days after Birth
http://www.discovercreation.org/blog/2012/07/31/8th-day-circumcision/

Another reason for the 8th day deals with blood clotting. Blood clotting is dependent on 3 factors: platelets, prothrombin, and vitamin K (which is responsible for prothrombin production and is produced by bacteria in the intestinal tract). Holt and McIntosh, in their classic work, Holt Pediatrics, observed that a newborn infant has “peculiar susceptibility to bleeding between the second and fifth days of life. … Hemorrhages at this time, though often inconsequential, are sometimes extensive; they may produce serious damage to internal organs, especially to the brain, and cause death from shock and exsanguination” (1953, pp. 125-126).

It has been shown that it is on the fifth through the seventh days of the newborn male’s life that vitamin K is present in adequate quantities for blood clotting.

On the eighth day, the amount of prothrombin present is above one-hundred percent of normal (the only day in the male’s life in which this will be normally be the case). Therefore, the 8th day is the perfect day to do the circumcision … when the Vitamin K and prothrombin levels are at their peak.

[stats]

What? Trying to cast doubt in his mind? For a joker who admits to accepting fictional science theory, rather than factual science law, you sure are an outspoken little ding-dong.

Which funny farm are you at again?