Much of the debate over routine infant circumcision has centered on the ethics of the procedure, in which a male’s foreskin is removed.
But a new study published Monday by health economists with the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine shifts the focus toward money. It says that if circumcision rates were to decline to the 10 percent level currently seen in Western Europe, it could add up to $505 million annually in direct health care costs.
“This is the first study ever conducted in the U.S. that has looked at the economic costs [of circumcision],” study author Dr. Aaron Tobian, a health epidemiologist and pathologist with Johns Hopkins, told The Huffington Post. “We believe that state Medicaid and private insurers should assess these data and recognize not only the medical benefits [of circumcision], but also the financial impact of denying coverage.”
Rates of male circumcision have dropped significantly in the past several decades, from 79 percent of baby boys born in the 1970s and 80s to approximately 55 percent by 2010, the study said. They estimate that for every year the male circumcision rates are at that level, the U.S. health care system can expect to pay $211 million more than it would have had rates remained at that 79 percent peak. Over a 10-year period, that would equal about $2 billion in avoidable health care costs.
And if rates were to fall to 10 percent, or what they currently are in Europe where insurance coverage for routine circumcision is rare, lifetime health care costs would increase by approximately $400 per male and $40 per female, the researchers said. Over the next decade, that would equal approximately $4.4 billion.
“These are conservative estimates,” Tobian said. “We only assessed direct medical cost. It does not include indirect [costs], such as patient or caregiver productivity lost.”
Most of the money would be spent on treating sexually transmitted infections, the authors said.
But opponents to male circumcision, sometimes called “intactivists,” argue that the health benefits of routine male circumcision are unproven. Georganne Chapin, founding executive director of the advocacy group Intact America, called some of the figures in the new study “trash.”
“They have no evidence — because there isn’t any — to back up these figures,” Chapin said in a statement. “Commonwealth and European countries where male circumcision is rare have equal-to or better health status than the U.S.”
Over the last several years, randomized trials in Africa have tied male circumcision to decreased risk of HIV infection as well as human papillomavirus (HPV), which can increase risk of cervical and other types of cancer. A 2010 trial, on which Tobian was an author, concluded that circumcision lowered the risk of genital herpes.
In the new study, published online in the Archives of Pediatric Medicine, Tobian and his colleagues estimated that if circumcision rates in the U.S. fell to 10 percent, the lifetime prevalence of HIV among men would increase by 12 percent, HPV by 29 percent, herpes type 2 by 20 percent and urinary tract infections by 212 percent. Women would also experience increases in sexually transmitted infections, such as bacterial vaginosis, a type of vaginal inflammation, and trichomoniasis, which is caused by a parasite.
“Documentation that male circumcision not only reduces the burden of STIs [sexually transmitted infections] for both men and women but also reduces lifetime treatment costs should provide compelling arguments in favor of infant male circumcision,” wrote Arleen Leibowitz, an economist and professor of public policy and Katherine Desmond, a statistician, both with the University of California Los Angeles in an editorial accompanying the findings.
Medicaid programs in 18 states in the U.S. currently do not provide coverage for routine circumcision of baby boys, and local governments in California attempted to pass bans on the practice, but those attempts were blocked by Gov. Jerry Brown last fall.
Parents and health experts now have their eyes trained on the American Academy of Pediatrics, which will release its new circumcision policy statement at the end of August. Since 1999, that group has said that there is existing scientific evidence that demonstrates the “potential” medical benefits of newborn male circumcision, but not enough to recommend it routinely.
@ yamit82:
Yamit, I got your message in email about the verses you quoted about Paul but it’s not listed here. Should I wait to see if it lists before I answer you?
@ Alanjo55:
That may indeed be so, but it does not constitute an argument for the book’s “accuracy.”
There are those who could use such an “understanding” to attribute the same legitimacy to the Book of Mormon
— inasmuch as there are few persons who would deny that LDS people are among the finest individuals (of any background) that they’ve ever encountered.
Are you quite certain that you want to use the above as “proof” of the Bible’s validity, perfection, and provenance?
@ Alanjo55:
The stuff about Paul (specifically) may be accurate.
That does not, of itself, mean the whole book is “accurate”
— e.g., there are passages of the Gospels whose authenticity is subject to reasonable challenge & disputation.
This could be the result of happenstance
— or it could betoken tampering.
@ yamit82:
Elsewhere he names Rabban Gam’liel as his teacher [Acts 22:3].
Are you suggesting that Gam’liel did not, in fact, teach Saul of Tarsus, Yamit?
If you are so suggesting, then do you not find it strange that there is no evidence of Gam’liel having ever called him out for the false claim?
Or do you mean to imply that Gam’liel is actually just another imaginary, non-historical character, like haNitzri himself?
@ yamit82:
Yamit, the portions of Scripture you chose are the normal ones people allude to as seeing problems. Why don’t we also discuss why the angel of the Lord who appeared to Samson’s father Manoah didn’t burn up in the fire. Or why the burning bush was not consumed when God appeared to Moses. The more people think they must ‘know’ everything the Bible says the furthur they get away from the truth, “The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our sons forever, that we may observe all the words of this law.” Deut. 29;29
If we could answer every question we would be God, for you yourself are aware there are things in Scripture to great for mere man to grasp. But this book has changed lives for the good-millions of souls. The only understanding for that is that the Bible is a Book written by a perfect God to an imperfect people so that lives can be transformed in perfection through that perfect God to have eternal presence with Him forever.
Instead of nit-picking, perhaps looking at the results of changed lives the Bible has produced over the centuries, transformed them out of darkness into light, and determining what power has caused this would be more beneficial.
@ Alanjo55:
Textual contradictions in the NT
Then start refuting them one by one and you can start with the lineage of Jesus (Matthew 1:2-17 and Luke 3:23-38). Which is correct? Remember Jewish Law before answering? Why no other gospel discusses the genealogy of Jesus?
THE LAST SUPPER
WHEN – BEFORE OR DURING PASSOVER?
In Matthew, Mark and Luke the last supper takes place on the first day of the Passover (Matthew 26:17, Mark 14:12, Luke 22:7). In John’s gospel it takes place a day earlier and Jesus is crucified on the first day of the Passover (John 19:14).
@ yamit82:
Yamit, I’ve heard all those before and they aren’t variations to cause any descrepancy or change in meaning to the message. Many people who don’t understand Scripture jump on these ‘phantom’ so-called ‘mistakes’ which are fully explained by Scripture itself.
What must be answered is that if one or even more of them are truely descrepancies, than why are so many lives changed for good through them throughout the world in a multiple of languages.
@ Alanjo55:
Textual contradictions in the NT
@ Alanjo55:
A small sampling, there are thousands more
matthew:
How many generations from Jesus to Abraham? 1:2-16, 17
From which of David’s sons was Jesus descended? 1:6-7
Genealogy of Jesus (Mt.1 vs Lk.3) 1:6-16
Must christians obey Old Testament Laws? 5:18-19
Is Salvation by faith alone? 5:20, 12:37, 16:27, 19:16-17, 25:41-46
Who were the apostles? 10:2-4
Did Jesus come to bring peace? 10:34, 26:52
Must christians obey Old Testament Laws? 16:16-17
How many disciples did Jesus appear to in his first post resurrection appearance? 28:16-17
Mark
Was Jesus crucified the day before or the day after the Passover meal? 14:12, 15:25
Where did John baptize? 1:0
Who were the apostles? 3:18
How should parents be treated? 3:32-33
Is there an unforgivable sin? 3:29
Was John the Baptist Elijah? 9:13
When did the transfiguration occur? 9:2
Did Jesus forewarn the apostles of his death and resurrection? 8:31, 10:33-34, 14:28
Luke
Has there ever been a righteous person? 1:5-6
Does righteousness come from following the Law? 1:6
When was the Holy Ghost given? 1:15, 1:41, 67, 2:26
Can God do anything? 1:37, 18:27
When was Jesus born? 2:1
Where did Joseph and Mary live before the birth of Jesus? 2:1-7
Has there ever been a just person? 1:17, 2:25, 14:14, 15:7, 23:50
Was Joseph the father of Jesus? 1:34, 20:41-45
On what did Jesus ride into Jerusalem? 11:7
Was Joseph the father of Jesus? Mark 12:35-37
Should we fear God? 1:50, 12:5
Did Jesus come to bring peace? 2:14
Must christians obey Old Testament Laws? 16:16-17
John
Who created heaven and earth? 1:6-10
Are we all God’s children? 1:12, 8:41-44
How many sons did God have? 1:12, 3:16, 18
Can God be seen? 1:18, 6:46,
Was John the Baptist Elijah? 1:21
Where did John baptize? 1:28
What did Jesus do after his baptism? 1:35, 1:43, 2:1,
How did Peter find out that Jesus was the Messiah? 1:40-41
Acts
Did Luke include everything that Jesus did? 1:1-2
When did Jesus ascend into heaven? 1:1-2, 9, Acts 13:31
Where did Jesus tell his disciples to go after his resurrection? 1:4
Should the gospel be preached to everyone? 1:8, 8:25, 15:3, 7, 16:6, 22:21, 28:28
Who were the apostles? 1:13
How many believers were there at the time of the ascension? 1:15
@ yamit82:
Sounds like we have a conflict here. The question becomes do you believe seasoned scientists who document validity in manuscripts or a single guy named Butterick with an opinion. Also, readings can be different but meanings can stay the same. You mentioned there were 50 variants of great significance in the Christian Bible. I would like to know what these are since I’ve never found a variant in the Bible and I’m always looking for true conflicts in it. Would you be so kind to list some of the variants and how they obscure the meaning?
@ Alanjo55:
Christian scholar Rt. Rev. George Arthur Butterick, in The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, a book written by to prove the validity of the New Testament, states:
“A study of 150 Greek [manuscripts] of the Gospel of Luke has revealed more than 30,000 different readings.…
There are 304,805 letters (approximately 79,000 words) in the Torah. In the over 3,000 years since Moses received the original Scripture from Mt. Sinai and wrote the 13 copies (twelve of which were distributed among the Tribes), spelling variants have emerged on a total of nine words — with absolutely no effect on their meaning. The Christian Bible, in comparison, has over 200,000 variants and in 400 instances, the variants change the meaning of the text; 50 of these are of great significance.
So much for your experts et al!!!!!!
@ Alanjo55:
Paul was no Jew and an ignoramus to boot:
PAUL TAUGHT THAT ONE CAN NOT BE JUSTIFIED BY G-D’S LAW BUT ONLY BY HAVING FAITH IN JESUS:
GAL002:015 We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles,
GAL002:016 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
GAL002:017 But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.
GAL002:018 For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.
GAL002:019 For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.
GAL002:020 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
GAL002:021 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.
ACT013:039 And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.
HERE PAUL SAID THAT YOU CAN NOT BE JUSTIFIED IN THE LAW AND THAT SALVATION IS THROUGH FAITH NOT THROUGH WORKS (YOUR ACTIONS):
ROM003:026 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.
ROM003:027 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.
ROM003:028 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
ROM003:029 Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also:
ROM003:030 Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.
STATEMENTS LIKE THESE CAUSE CHRISTIANS TO THINK THEY ARE NO LONGER UNDER G-D’S LAW, EVEN THOUGH JESUS SAID THAT THEY WERE:
GAL005:018 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
HERE IT SEEMS THAT PAUL SAID THAT CHRISTIANS ARE NOT UNDER THE LAW BUT STILL HAVE TO FOLLOW IT:
ROM006:014 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.
ROM006:015 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.
MY GUESS IS, EITHER PAUL SAID DIFFERENT THINGS TO DIFFERENT AUDIENCES, OR WHENEVER IT SOUNDS LIKE HE IS DISCOUNTING THE MOSAIC LAWS, HE IS
HERE PAUL SEEMED TO WAVER AND SURE MADE IT SEEM LIKE FAITH WAS NOT THE ONLY CRITERIA:
GAL005:019 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
GAL005:020 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
GAL005:021 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
PAUL WAVERS YET AGAIN AND SAYS:
EPH002:014 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
EPH002:015 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
SO AGAIN PAUL SAID THAT THE LAW IS ABOLISHED.
PAUL ADMITTED TO SAYING WHATEVER IT TOOK AND BEING WHOEVER HE NEEDED TO BE TO CONVERT PEOPLE:
1CO009:020 And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;
1CO009:021 To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.
1CO009:022 To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.
1CO009:023 And this I do for the gospel’s sake, that I might be partaker thereof with you.
IT DOES NOT SEEM VERY HONEST TO ME. A lot like Islam. 😛
IT APPEARS THAT PAUL BELIEVED THAT G-D’S LAW WAS NO LONGER IMPORTANT AND THAT ALL ONE NEEDED TO DO, TO GET TO HEAVEN, WAS HAVE “FAITH” IN JESUS — IT IS CALLED “GRACE”. BUT G-D SAYS THROUGH THE PROPHET HOSEA:
HOS004:006 My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children.
I’M SURE YOU HAVE HEARD DEBATES ON LOWERING THE REQUIREMENTS FOR COLLEGE ADMISSIONS, SO THAT PEOPLE WHO CAN NOT MEET THESE STANDARDS, CAN STILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY. I’M SURE THAT MANY CHRISTIANS, WOULD BE AGAINST LOWERING THESE REQUIREMENTS AND IN FACT SUGGEST THAT THESE PEOPLE WORK HARDER TO MEET THE STANDARDS. BUT LOOK WHAT PAUL SAID:
ROM004:015 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.
ROM004:016 Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace;
IT SEEMS LIKE PAUL BELIEVED THAT BY DOING AWAY WITH G-D’S LAWS, PEOPLE COULD NO LONGER BE CONSIDERED SINNERS. THEREFORE THEY WOULD AUTOMATICALLY BE SAVED THROUGH GRACE — HAVING FAITH IN JESUS AND HAVING NOTHING TO DO WITH THEIR ACTIONS. TALK ABOUT LOWERING THE STANDARDS. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A SCALE AND CAN NOT WEIGH YOURSELF, DOES THIS MEAN YOU CAN NOT GAIN WEIGHT? I WISH!
FROM THE MOMENT G-D GAVE HIS LAW TO THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL (1200 YEARS BEFORE THE COMMON ERA), THE BIBLE OFTEN PORTRAYS THEM AS TRANSGRESSING THESE LAWS. BUT NOT ONCE DOES ANY PROPHET EVEN HINT AT DOING AWAY WITH ANY OF THESE LAWS. IN FACT, THEY CONTINUE STRESSING THE IMPORTANCE OF G-D’S LAW.
I DO NOT BELIEVE G-D WOULD EVER LOWER HIS STANDARDS. YET I DO NOT BELIEVE G-D EXPECTS PERFECTION EITHER (IT APPEARS IN THE BIBLE THAT MOSES WAS SOMEHOW INVOLVED IN THE DEATH OF AN EGYPTIAN, AARON WAS INVOLVED IN THE GOLDEN CALF INCIDENT AND KING DAVID SEEMED TO HAVE HAD AN AFFAIR WITH A MARRIED WOMAN). BUT I DO BELIEVE G-D WANTS US TO STRIVE TO MEET HIS STANDARD, BY FOLLOWING THE LAWS HE HAS GIVEN TO US.
I BELIEVE THAT PAUL WAS SO CONCERNED ABOUT HIS OWN SALVATION, SINCE HE HAD DONE SO MANY HORRIBLE THINGS TO THE FOLLOWERS OF JESUS, THAT HE CONCOCTED THIS WHOLE CONCEPT OF GRACE.
I KNOW THAT CHRISTIANS ENJOY READING THE PROVERBS OUT OF THE JEWISH BIBLE BUT DO THEY SKIP OVER THESE TWO?
PRO028:009 He that turneth away his ear from hearing the law, even his prayer shall be abomination.
PRO029:018 Where there is no vision, the people perish: but he that keepeth the law, happy is he.
IS THERE ANY WONDER WHY THE JEWISH ELDERS, WHO WERE FAMILIAR WITH THE JEWISH BIBLE, REJECTED PAUL’S THEOLOGY? REMEMBER THE BOOK OF PROVERBS IS ATTRIBUTED TO KING SOLOMON, THE WISEST MAN WHO EVER LIVED. WHO DO YOU BELIEVE, PAUL OR KING SOLOMON?
THE BOTTOM LINE IS, IN THE BOOK OF EXODUS G-D MAKES IT CLEAR THAT HE EXPECTS HIS CHOSEN PEOPLE, THE PEOPLE THAT HE MADE A COVENANT WITH, TO KEEP HIS LAWS AND TO BE A HOLY NATION. PAUL CAN NOT DO AWAY WITH G-D’S LAWS AND AT THE SAME TIME BELIEVE G-D’S COVENANT IS NOW WITH THE PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE IN JESUS, INSTEAD OF WITH THE DESCENDANTS OF JACOB.
EXO019:005 Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine:
EXO019:006 And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.
IS IT ANY WONDER THAT THE JEWS COULD NOT BELIEVE WHAT PAUL WAS SAYING, CONCERNING G-D’S LAW? THEY KNEW THAT KEEPING G-D’S LAWS WAS THE “ONLY” WAY TO KEEP THEIR COVENANT WITH G-D.
@ yamit82:
The information about the Apostle Paul is written in documents which have the most internal evidence and external evidence on accuracy of information ever written in human history. Historical scientists who determine legitimacy in documents have determined the documents containing the information on the Apostle Paul to be 100% accurate. Not only have these scientists determined the accuracy but the document itself contains evidence of it being 100% accurate. This document is commonly referred to as the Holy Bible and is the beet seller of all time. Even though it is 100% accurate you will find people questioning it and/or not accepting some or all of it for various empty reasons.
Yamit, I never thought you were a true rabbi. That must have been made in a joking manner.
@ Alanjo55:
Now tell me how you know “Paul was of the tribe of Benjamin, circumcised the eighth day, a Hebrew of the Hebrews, as touching the law, a Pharisee. Paul once had been a persecutor of God’s Church when he was a Pharisee but than his life was supernaturally transformed through God. Paul knew Judaism very well and wrote about it.” ???
I am not a rabbi, not even close.
@ Alanjo55:
Now tell me how you know “Paul was of the tribe of Benjamin, circumcised the eighth day, a Hebrew of the Hebrews, as touching the law, a Pharisee. Paul once had been a persecutor of God’s Church when he was a Pharisee but than his life was supernaturally transformed through God. Paul knew Judaism very well and wrote about it.” ???
I am not a rabbi, not even close. Paul should have known the Law
@ yamit82:
Yamit, you surprised me at your ignorance of the Apostle Paul saying he wasn’t Jewish and didn’t know Judaism. Paul was of the tribe of Benjamin, circumcised the eighth day, a Hebrew of the Hebrews, as touching the law, a Pharisee. Paul once had been a persecutor of God’s Church when he was a Pharisee but than his life was supernaturally transformed through God. Paul knew Judaism very well and wrote about it. Are you really the resident rabbi on this forum someone referred to you as or was that a joke?
@ yamit82:
My “purpose,” as shown in my post [#17], was to make a relevant comment to that of Alanjo’s earlier post #10:
What I offerred was QUITE relevant. If you don’t like it
— stuff it.
The line I cited from Paul’s first letter to the Corinth congregation WAS an “improvement.”
It was certainly more APPOSITE to the specific circumstances of those early Asia Minor communities than would have been the unmodified line from Isaiah. In the latter situation, the author was drawing attention to the uniqueness of the one true God. Paul took that and refocused it so it could provide comfort to the individual believers themselves — in their personal lives as individuals , and not merely in the aggregate as a nation generally (as in the Isaiah passage itself).
They needed to see — as persons — that following a Leading which may appear “blind” (and even senseless) can have a “method to its madness” after all, when the SOURCE of that Leading is an objectively real and trustworthy one.
Your ignorance of what Paul was about makes me all the more certain that YOU are clueless about what it means to be Jewish.
If I were a betting man [I’m not, but if I were], I’d say
A) that you are a ba’al t’shuva (for the uninitiate, a returnee to the Jewish community of belief), and
B) that this is the result of an overreaction to having previously lived a “dissolute” life.
So now you strap yourself into an intellectual-moral-ceremonial straitjacket
— in hopes of keeping yourself from going off the deep end. . . . ever again.
And that strait-jacket may well keep you from going off the deep end
— but it will never bring you to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob
(not if you live to be as old as A, I, J — combined — were by the time they left this earth).
No straitjacket (of any kind) will bring you to Him — because He wants you FREE, not confined.
A privilege which, in his day, he — as a Jew — shared with nine percent of the total Roman citizenry. Big deal.
As I’ve said before, Yamit, you come up with these weak, paper-thin claims only because you’re scared.
@ yamit82:
And how did/do you know your gardener knew what he was talking about?
— of course, you make assumptions about me, Yahnkel. You’re CONSTANTLY doing so; can’t help yourself (even when you’re trying to be cute).
Sorry, haNitzri isn’t about ‘martyr’ complexes. Never was about that.
— Your ignorance of the “Jesus” matter is damned near as colossal as that of the Xians. (And that’s saying something.)
Right, to the first half.
Wrong, to the second half.
One of the few times on this blogsite that you’ve ever batted .500 regarding YoursEverTruly. (Usually it’s closer to 1-150.)
I KNOW you have no idea what sophistry consists of. You only use the word because obviously somebody once accused YOU of it (probably with good reason). In fact, probably quite a bit more than once, as you certainly gravitate toward it.
But “circular argument,” moi?
— show it to me. (This should be good.)
@ yamit82:
U are mixing apples with oranges.
Pregnancy is about physicality, it is material. Ideology is about concepts and a spectrum of ideas (goals) that may stretch from one extreme to the opposite extreme.
@ dweller:
Of course as I show below you cut the verse to suit your own purpose: See verses below.
“Redemption” generally refers to the arrival of the Messiah. According to Maimonides (and the Talmud in Berochos 34b and Sanhedrin 91b), in the time of the Messiah the world will be much as it is today except that the Jews will have a king who will conquer the land of Israel and rebuild the Temple. ( I disagree with this interpretation) Jews should conquer the Land and build the Temple at every opportunity in any time and generation! Many orthodox rabbis and sages misinterpret the texts for mostly political reasons
The Almighty did not authorize our prophets and sages to invalidate Torah precepts, but only to defend the Torah and to encourage the Jewish people to perform its precepts. As with any other case of delegated authority, the following rule is valid; “I appointed you to improve the situation, not to worsen it” (Bavli, Kiddushin 42b).
Halakhic Authority is Granted to Ensure the Performance of Precepts, not to Invalidate Them
The “world to come” (olam ha-ba) is a later period, after the resurrection of the dead Even the prophets have not described the World to Come (Talmud, Berachos 34b); “the eye has not seen” (Isaiah 64:3).
Pauls’ ignorance of Judaism, Jewish Law and Hebrew and Aramaic texts lead me to believe he was not Jewish. He admits to being a Roman citizen.
@ dweller:
Of course as I show below you cut the verse to suit your own purpose: See verses below.
“Redemption” generally refers to the arrival of the Messiah. According to Maimonides (and the Talmud in Berochos 34b and Sanhedrin 91b), in the time of the Messiah the world will be much as it is today except that the Jews will have a king who will conquer the land of Israel and rebuild the Temple. ( I disagree with this interpretation) Jews should conquer the Land and build the Temple at every opportunity in any time and generation! Many orthodox rabbis and sages misinterpret the texts for mostly political reasons
The Almighty did not authorize our prophets and sages to invalidate Torah precepts, but only to defend the Torah and to encourage the Jewish people to perform its precepts. As with any other case of delegated authority, the following rule is valid; “I appointed you to improve the situation, not to worsen it” (Bavli, Kiddushin 42b).
Halakhic Authority is Granted to Ensure the Performance of Precepts, not to Invalidate Them
The “world to come” (olam ha-ba) is a later period, after the resurrection of the dead Even the prophets have not described the World to Come (Talmud, Berachos 34b); “the eye has not seen” (Isaiah 64:3).
Rashi Commentary on the verses:
And whereof no one had ever heard: like those awesome deeds performed for one of all the nations before that, and no eye had ever seen another god besides You, that the god would do for him who hoped for him what You did for him who hoped for You. I heard this from Rabbi Jose, and it pleased me. ([Manuscripts yield:]
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
And whereof no one had ever heard: like those awesome deeds performed for one of all the nations before that, neither had an eye seen God, besides your eyes, what He would do for one who hoped for Him. Another explanation is:
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
No eye had seen: that a god besides You should perform miracles for him who hoped for him, as You do for those who hope for You. From Rabbi Joseph I heard this. Our Rabbis, however, who stated (Ber. 34a): “None of the prophets prophesied except regarding the Messianic era, but the World to Come, ‘no eye saw etc.,’” expounded its meaning in the following manner: No prophet’s eye saw what the Holy One, blessed be He, will do for him who hopes for Him except Your eyes, You, O God.
Pauls’ ignorance of Judaism, Jewish Law and Hebrew and Aramaic texts lead me to believe he was not Jewish. He admits to being a Roman citizen.
@ dweller:
No assumptions from me because my Mystic Mexican Gardner Jesus told me you were projecting and playing cyber Dr. Phil.
He said that you always had a Jesus martyr complex. You believe we are all born in sin, and life is but acting out our punishment for sin.
But between us, I have never read such a circular argument and sophistry in a couple of sentences as you have posted above. I know you can do better.
@ yamit82:
Nope. No analysis — ‘attempted’ or otherwise (and certainly NOT ‘Freudian’). Told you all that before.
Not assumptions; I know what I see.
It’s YOURSELF who makes assumptions about how I see.
Again, it’s you who are assuming that I “cannot know what lies behind his positions.”
— How do you know that I “cannot know” what lies behind them?
He’s just been hurt.
Like you.
He just has a different defense of that hurt from yours
— nothing more.
@ steven l:
That is itself an ideology. You think you’re above it, but ideology merely acknowledges a pattern to things.
Whether you are conscious of it or not, you inevitably express a pattern of your own mind — perhaps quite in spite of yourself.
like everybody else.
It’s inescapable.
@ steven l:
Somehow pragmatic ideology does not seem to fit in any of the classic definitions listed above. I contend that the injection of pragmatism into any definition of ideology is an oxymoron. Like,.. can a woman be half pregnant?
@ dweller:
Dr. dweller and his Lame, pseudo Freudian attempts at analysis.
Sir: You make many assumptions based on your own psychological projections. You assume but cannot know what lies behind his positions on ideology.
He might be just a Zombie. 😉
@ dweller:
From our Torah Text
Sforno was commenting on the text dealing with “Tazria and Metzora”. Tazria and Metzora cover birth, disease and human sexuality, all of which bridge the span between the physical and the spiritual through issues of purity and impurity. The determination of these two states is the responsibility of the Cohanim – the priests – and so this discussion is found in the centre of Leviticus, the priestly handbook.
Sforno maintains that there is a direct link. While his biology may not be accurate, he notes the connection the text makes between the state of impurity a woman enters when she gives birth with the similar state of impurity of niddah -menstruation
@ dweller:
There is always a choice. Extreme VS tempered or pragmatic ideology. I will always subscribe to the second, to the first never.
@ yamit82:
Seems unlikely, notwithstanding the venerable Sforno.
It’s true that there are rare instances of a pregnancy coexisting with, or overlapping, a period. However, the only ways a baby in utero can actually ingest anything are “breathing it in” from within the amniotic sac, where he/she lives — and which is effectively sealed-off against outside contamination — OR thru the umbilical cord.
The umbilical cord is the baby’s lifeline. It’s the super highway that connects the placenta to the baby & is composed of 3 blood vessels: 2 arteries & 1 vein. The 2 arteries carry blood away from the fetus to the placenta, where it dumps the waste products from the infant into the maternal bloodstream, thence to be filtered out by the kidneys. The vein carries oxygen & nutrient-rich blood from the mother’s bloodstream to the infant. All of this happens without the 2 blood supplies ever mixing. . . .
Nu?
@ steven l:
You are a sad case of “once burned, twice shy.”
“Ideology” once (maybe even twice) betrayed you, so now you’re gun-shy over ALL ideology.
There’s a line from Mark Twain (right, there’s always a line from him) about how
— “a cat, having sat upon a hot stove lid, will not sit upon a hot stove lid again. But she won’t sit upon a cold stove lid, either.”
A standard animal reaction.
— Unlike a man, an animal has no alternative response accessible to it.
In the end, by distrusting all “ideology,” you wind up throwing out the baby with the bathwater (to coin a phrase).
How small you are.
@ yamit82:
Didn’t ‘cut’ it.
I merely cited the pertinent part. (Unlike some of us, I try to stay on-point.)
Not at all. NEITHER of them is “too Jewish” for me.
But obviously Paul’s meditation on Isaiah IS too Jewish for you.
It figures.Ffor all your blusterings, Yamit, you’re not really a BELIEVER in the God of A-I-J.
Only a partisan.
There’s a huge difference between a believer & a partisan — and anybody can see it here.
@ dweller:
1 Corinthians 2:9?
Why did you cut the verse?
The original Isaiah 64:4 Too Jewish for you?
Gut Xmas to you too.
Ideology: the mother killer.
@ Alanjo55:
“Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor have entered into the heart of man, the things which God has prepared for them that love Him, that wait upon His good pleasure. . . .”
Gut shabbos, one & all.
Jews should stop fighting a losing battle and leave all countries who ban Jewish circumcism
Jews Outraged as Circumcision Issue Hits Denmark
A former Jew in Denmark said that circumcision is a ritual in which ‘black-clad men’ mutilate a baby. Local Jews outraged.
German Rabbi Sued for Performing Circumcision
A doctor sues a German rabbi in the city of Hof for performing a circumcision on a baby and “physically harming” him.
@ dweller:
I would maintain it has more to do with the mother being fit to participate in the ritual than the child.
Moderated again 🙁
@ Alanjo55:
We circumcise, Maimonides argues, not as an act of remembrance of our ancestor Abraham’s faith, but as an act of our own faith, one that needs no rationale. The connection in this context appears to be two-fold: first, it is natural to include infant circumcision with discussions of birth since they are both part of the process of a young Jewish boy being born into life and, as Sforno reminded us, there seems to be some form of conceptual link between birth/menstrual blood and the blood of circumcision. But, secondly, the link also is the matter of faith. Just as issues of ritual purity and impurity make little sense to us as practical matters, yet they remain a major focus of the Torah and are central to all ritual matters, circumcision too is not meant to be justified or understood. We don’t circumcise for historical reasons, or health reasons, or any other reason that may appeal to our rational thought. We circumcise, simply as an act of faith. It is a mitzvah; we do it because G-d has commanded it of us. That should be reason enough for any mitzvah.
@ Bill Levinson:
We circumcise, Maimonides argues, not as an act of remembrance of our ancestor Abraham’s faith, but as an act of our own faith, one that needs no rationale. The connection in this context appears to be two-fold: first, it is natural to include infant circumcision with discussions of birth since they are both part of the process of a young Jewish boy being born into life and, as Sforno reminded us, there seems to be some form of conceptual link between birth/menstrual blood and the blood of circumcision. But, secondly, the link also is the matter of faith. Just as issues of ritual purity and impurity make little sense to us as practical matters, yet they remain a major focus of the Torah and are central to all ritual matters, circumcision too is not meant to be justified or understood. We don’t circumcise for historical reasons, or health reasons, or any other reason that may appeal to our rational thought. We circumcise, simply as an act of faith. It is a mitzvah; we do it because G-d has commanded it of us. That should be reason enough for any mitzvah.
@ dweller:
Unknown to the Jewish people who were instructed by God to circumcise on the eight day after birth, the blood system has a clotting affect caused by Vitamin K. Throughout the life of a human being, Vitamin K is at its highest level in the body on the eighth day after birth. Once, an agnostic Jewish pediatrician was confronted with the thought that God’s instructions to this Dr.’s very own people to perform a religious but also healthy procedure was for their good, made him consider his agnostic beliefs.
@ Laura:
Apparently it comes down to a simple question of who has — and who doesn’t have — uh, skin in the game
(so to speak).
@ Bill Levinson:
Probably. But in all likelihood they do it well before the Eighth Day after birth too
— for reasons of economy, to get the mother outa there faster & free-up the bed for another ‘patient,’ etc.
But it turns out that the newborn’s nervous system isn’t quite stable enough to warrant that kind of trauma (of circumcision) UNTIL the eighth day.
(Fancy that.)
@ Bill Levinson:
The name Brit Milah comes from Brit (covenant) and Milah (act of circumcision.
If the act has any medical or sexual benefits is for Jews besides the point and it is the second commandment in the Torah for Jews.
If a doctor, non religious Mohel or gentile performs the Brit in a hospital it has no religious significance and negates the commandment for Jews and might as well not have been performed unless the doctor is religiously pious and performs the ceremony according to tradition with or without gloves and mask. I am sure that there are cases of post surgical infection in or out of hospitals and either performed by traditional Mohels or by physicians but if there are in both instances they are rare occurrences. Since we have been performing this same rite for close to 4000 years and even atheist Jews like Trotsky and Marx were probably circumcised in the same manner and even your mythical Jesus was according to Christian beliefs in the same manner. I see no reason to change the traditional method. Even in Judaism where any new scientific evidence or a negative to health, trumps Jewish traditional practice if it is proven by scientific evidence. None has yet to be presented except mostly antisemitic pseudo studies.
I received twice serious post op strep and staff infections once in an American hospital Mass Gen and once in Israel Tel Hashomer by doctors using gloves and masks.
Bad link correction:
Bris Milah Circumcision and Jewish Baby namings JewU 47 Rabbi Jonathan Ginsburg
@ yamit82:
Mitzvote series 2 Circumcision Jewu 297 Rabbi Jonathan Ginsburg http://www.jewu.info
Bris Milah Circumcision and Jewish Baby namings JewU 47 Rabbi Jonathan Ginsburg
@ Bill Levinson:
Curious that tens of millions of Jews since Abraham never considered wearing gloves and a mask, till Levinson. 🙂
Some examples of Brit Milah (circumcision according to our tradition)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OiYs7Recx7I&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQzKBw3SbF0&feature=related
Yet there is no evidence that male circumcision is harmful in any way. So why the sudden movement to put an end to it or in some cases outright ban it? I think we all know the answer to that.