Piney Posted March 9, 2019 #51 Share Posted March 9, 2019 On 3/7/2019 at 2:05 PM, Aquila King said: There's nothing wrong with doing it, but it's really only done for religious reasons. There really isn't any health reason for doing it. The whole "hygiene" argument for circumcision makes absolutely no sense. You don't chop off your arms to keep you armpits clean, or chop off your butt cheeks to keep your butt clean. If you wanna keep your ding dong clean, then clean your ding dong. Boys don't. It's hard enough getting them to shower sometimes and when you live on a rez or in a ghetto where not a lot of people have running water and everything is loaded with germs infections are common. That's why we do it. Your armpits don't get infected, neither does your ass cheeks. Sheaves do. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aquila King Posted March 9, 2019 #52 Share Posted March 9, 2019 19 hours ago, Piney said: Boys don't. It's hard enough getting them to shower sometimes and when you live on a rez or in a ghetto where not a lot of people have running water and everything is loaded with germs infections are common. That's why we do it. Your armpits don't get infected, neither does your ass cheeks. Sheaves do. Whatever man. Foreskins are the least of my worries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piney Posted March 9, 2019 #53 Share Posted March 9, 2019 15 minutes ago, Aquila King said: Whatever man. Foreskins are the least of my worries. I would think so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davros of Skaro Posted March 13, 2019 #54 Share Posted March 13, 2019 On 3/5/2019 at 7:03 PM, Guyver said: Well then, I would chalk that one up to religious zealotry....which no doubt existed back then, and probably on a higher level than even today. The idea of taking your firstborn son, slaying him, and offering him as a human sacrifice on a fire to a god or “God” is the kind of thing that should make every thinking person cringe, and it should be a severe indication that one should “check themselves before they wreck themselves” - IMO. With all the pain and suffering, death, disappointments and stress that already exist in the world, the notion of “God” taking time out from his busy schedule to come down and give someone a personal invitation to kill another human being for his pleasure not only strikes me as a type of insanity....but an evil. Yet, there was a time when I believed it because I believed the bible to be divinely inspired and directed. Now that I’m free from my former religious indoctrination, I hold the opposite view. What do you think about it? I don't remember exactly what I felt when I first read, or heard the Abraham/Isaac account. I can say with confidence that I seen it as I did with the rest of the Bible in that it was just stories. Now I see the full context. Many believers have no problem with the narrative because since God made everything, he can give, and take as he pleases. But the Bible is propaganda to instill this kind of thinking, and unify people for nation building. Remember that the act of Abraham believing God was accounted as "Righteousness". If the story had some basis in truth? Then what if this character was a schizophrenic obeying voices in his head? Not the icon to follow for sure. But it's all made up. It's symbolism. For example his name means "Father", and God promises him his descendants will be many. On the positive side it's a declaration against human sacrifice as some other cultures of the time were doing, or previously. I think that circumcision might even be a practice derived as a substitute for human sacrifice? I also see this account as being one of the building blocks that brought about Christianity. For example the Angel that called down to Abraham to stop is God's first-born Divine Word (Gen. 22:11/Gal. 4:6) As for Philo. If you looked closely you will see he ties together the tools for Abraham's sacrifice with the Cherubim that guards the way to the Garden of Eden. There's some powerful magical trees to hang from in that Paradise (Deut. 21:22-23/Gal. 3:13), but I digress. Philo was an Hellenistic Jew that seen (with great mental gymnastics) in the books of Moses deep philosophy that rivaled Socrates, Plato, and the Stoics. One of these beliefs (he embraced for which the Torah reveals by textual hiccup) is that this world is a lesser copy of a greater world which we originally came from (Platonism which I believe later morphed into Gnosticism being tainted by the Gospel fictions). So Abraham was just sending his son to that divine realm which is free from lowly matter. Disease, and ailments was seen as spiritual attacks by elemental spirits that are tempted by sin loving flesh (one gets entrapped here by embracing sin). So Abraham was just sending his son home by the command of God in Philo's eyes. I don't see it to be a useful counter argument when debating Christians. I'm surprised it was a stumbling block for you. You must not have been indoctrinated enough, or are able to think above the environment in which you were in? Do you still believe in Jesus? Should I call you Guyver the Marcionite? Abraham showed his faith, and never sacrificed his son is the base rational. A better example would be Judges 11:29-39 (be careful what you offer for God's favor). 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmccr8 Posted March 13, 2019 #55 Share Posted March 13, 2019 To be honest, I do not understand why there is plural in ethics for starts, there is personal/business/family/etc ethics but for me, I have one ethic that I apply equally across the board on all playing fields. What is the significance of having different ethics for different venues in life? jmccr8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Walker Posted March 13, 2019 #56 Share Posted March 13, 2019 (edited) On 02/03/2019 at 1:45 PM, Guyver said: Circumcision is probably ok from a health standpoint. Indeed. About 80% of new born males were circumcised in Australia in the 1950s While there is an argument that it disregards the right of a child to self determination, that could also be applied to vaccinations. From a health standpoint there are good arguments for circumcision when young, to avoid it when older. However, it should not be done for social or religious reasons. Edited March 13, 2019 by Mr Walker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Walker Posted March 13, 2019 #57 Share Posted March 13, 2019 On 08/03/2019 at 5:35 AM, Aquila King said: There's nothing wrong with doing it, but it's really only done for religious reasons. There really isn't any health reason for doing it. The whole "hygiene" argument for circumcision makes absolutely no sense. You don't chop off your arms to keep you armpits clean, or chop off your butt cheeks to keep your butt clean. If you wanna keep your ding dong clean, then clean your ding dong. Actually even modern medicine allows that there are some health benefits for circumcision, but i agree that it should be done only for medical reasons not relgious or cosmetic /social ones I was in my 40s before i ever saw an uncircumcised penis in a sporting change room because all the boys in my age group were circumcised. Fitting in with your peers is also important with something like this quote Recent research suggests that circumcision may bring medical benefits such as: a 10 times lower risk of a baby getting a urinary tract infection (UTI) in his first year of life (remembering that only one per cent of babies are at risk of a UTI, so 1,000 circumcisions are needed to prevent one UTI) no risk of infants and children getting infections under the foreskin easier genital hygiene much lower risk of getting cancer of the penis (although this is a very rare condition and good genital hygiene also seems to reduce the risk. More than 10,000 circumcisions are needed to prevent one case of penile cancer) a possibly lower risk of men getting sexually transmissible infections (STIs) than men who are not circumcised (although these studies have not been scientifically confirmed and safe sex practices are far more effective in preventing these infections) https://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/health/ConditionsAndTreatments/circumcision?viewAsPdf=true quote The practice of removing the foreskin, called circumcision, is now the most frequently performed surgical procedure in the world, says Brian Morris, Professor of Molecular Medical Sciences at the University of Sydney, writing in the journal BioEssays. The mucosa (the inner lining) of the foreskin is very thin, and doesn't have the defences against injury and infection that normal skin does, he says. A whitish residue of dead cells and other material, called 'smegma', collects under the foreskin and this attracts bacteria and other microorganisms. So statistically, men who haven't been circumcised are more prone to a wide range of infectious diseases, ranging from thrush, to human papilloma virus, syphilis, HIV, and urinary tract infections. And their female partners are much more likely to get genital herpes, chlamydia, pelvic inflammatory disease and infertility. Rates of cancer of the penis and prostate are higher in men who have intact foreskins, and rates of cancer of the cervix are higher in their female partners. A range of other conditions of the penis are more frequent, including inflammatory conditions of the skin, and phimosis, a narrowing of the opening the foreskin that prevents it being retracted and makes sex painful. There's a one-in-three chance of an uncircumcised man developing one or more of these conditions over his lifetime, says Morris. That's why circumcision is routine in infant boys in cultures all over the world (Hispanics, Europeans and Asians being a notable exception). http://www.abc.net.au/health/thepulse/stories/2008/01/31/2150927.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guyver Posted March 13, 2019 #58 Share Posted March 13, 2019 14 hours ago, MERRY DMAS said: I don't remember exactly what I felt when I first read, or heard the Abraham/Isaac account. I can say with confidence that I seen it as I did with the rest of the Bible in that it was just stories. Now I see the full context. Many believers have no problem with the narrative because since God made everything, he can give, and take as he pleases. But the Bible is propaganda to instill this kind of thinking, and unify people for nation building. Remember that the act of Abraham believing God was accounted as "Righteousness". Abraham showed his faith, and never sacrificed his son is the base rational. A better example would be Judges 11:29-39 (be careful what you offer for God's favor). Well said. Quote I don't see it to be a useful counter argument when debating Christians. I'm surprised it was a stumbling block for you. You must not have been indoctrinated enough, or are able to think above the environment in which you were in? Do you still believe in Jesus? Should I call you Guyver the Marcionite? Lol. Nice. Uh....no....I can't call myself a Marcionite because I don't have confidence in the New Testament or the Old. I guess that answers your question about Jesus. Thank you for your informed and insightful post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now