| Author |
 Topic  |
|
GHcool 
"Forever a curious character."
|
 Posted - 07/28/2007 : 07:35:12
|
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
quote:
Originally posted by TitanPa
So you anti-Circumcisonists must also be agaist...
Tattoos
Earrings
Nose Rings
Nipple Rings
Belly Rings
Face Lifts
Boob Jobs
Sex Changes
Lip Injections
Hair Transplants
Mole Removals
Skin Bleaching
Hair Coloring
Never alter how God made you. Right?
I had a mole removed as it might have been cancerous (it wasn't), but I've done none of the others. Not that that matters, as I'd happily do any of them to myself that I felt like doing. The point is that I'd never do ANY of them to a baby without asking him first. And as he couldn't answer I'd take his answer as "No".
I have seen earings on babies before, but I dislike the practice intensely. This is a completely different issue from circumcision. In fact, it is circumcision's mirror image because for circumcision, the longer you wait after the birth of the baby, the less "barbaric" circumcision is (at least in Western cultures) whereas ear piercings is encouraged to be done several years after birth (at least in Western cultures).
I'm not sure how other guys feel about earrings, but I could live without them. I've never noticed earrings before and certainly haven't found any women more attractive due to her earrings in the way I might do to a nice dress or even a necklace. The message I get from fancy earrings is that the wearer is either rich or is close to somebody who is rich. |
 |
|
|
ChocolateLady 
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 07/28/2007 : 10:12:44
|
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
Hmmm, I looked the word up in the dictionary, and it does apply to the way I think of the procedure.
mutilate
3. "To make imperfect by excising or altering parts."
The way I see it, a boy is born with his dick the way it is, and I might as well call it "perfect". So when someone "excises or alters parts" through circumcision then it becomes less than perfect. The dictionary supplies the word "mutilate" for this. So it is the word I'd use and the way I think of it, it sums up the procedure exactly. Naturally this is subjective and you won't agree, and I don't have a problem with you not agreeing, i.e., I'm not insulted by your difference of opinion.
But I don't make a habit of arguing about the way I use words (or the way others use words), so I've substituted the word "mutilate" with "alter" without changing the meaning or the way I think of the procedure, after all I've made it clear the way I think of it. No skin off my nose. 
I appreciate this.
(I personally think an uncircumsised penis is less perfect than a circumsised one. Perfection is in the eye of the beholder.) |
|
|
|
ChocolateLady
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 07/28/2007 : 10:19:37
|
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
I'm not a creationist type, but... surely if the infinite wisdom of God didn't want us to have this bit of skin then why did he design us with it? Who are we mere mortals to modify God's perfect design?
God's perfect design, eh? Ever heard of the part of your body called an appendix? |
|
|
|
Conan The Westy
"Father, Faithful Friend, Fwiffer"
|
Posted - 07/28/2007 : 11:19:46
|
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
I'm not a creationist type, but... surely if the infinite wisdom of God didn't want us to have this bit of skin then why did he design us with it? Who are we mere mortals to modify God's perfect design?
God's perfect design, eh? Ever heard of the part of your body called an appendix?
Without trying to trigger off the creation vs evolution debate, here's an article on "useless" organs such as the appendix.
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/709
|
|
|
|
BiggerBoat 
"Pass me the harpoon"
|
Posted - 07/28/2007 : 11:26:20
|
quote:
Originally posted by GHcool
quote:
Originally posted by BiggerBoat
Seeing as none of this was covered in any of the holy books, and being devoid of any kind of religous sentiment myself, how am I supposed to know whether this act is right or wrong (that's GOOD or EVIL to you religous types I guess)?
I hate to point this out, BiggerBoat, but your 100% wrong. Genesis chapter 17 deals explicitly with the commandment to perform circumcisions. To summarize:
After the birth of his first son, Ishmael, through his wife's maid, God speaks to Abram promising him that he will father two great nations: one through Ishamel and the other through another child that will be born from his wife, Sarai, who, until that point, could not bare children. God also promises that the descendants of this unborn child (later named Isaac) will inherit what will later be known as the biblical "Land of Israel" (not to be confused with the modern "State of Israel"). God then commands Abram to circumcise himself and all of his descendants forever as a sign of this covenent. God then changes Abram's name to Abraham and Sarai's name to Sarah.
Whether the above makes sense, is impossible, or is historical truth or not is irrelevent here because most anti-circumcision activists aren't interested in debunking the entire Bible. The fact is that circumcision is more than just a tradition or custom for practicing Jews and Muslims; it is a commandment from God that is followed with love and pride.
On the other hand, the Bible does not command people who aren't Abraham's descendants (or identify themselves as one) to circumcise their males. Therefore, the majority of uncircumcised males in Britain, Australia, etc. can sleep soundly knowing they aren't breaking any biblical laws by not being circumcised. Not all the commandments in the Torah apply to everyone universally (in fact, very few do).
Well, well, there it is in black and white (mental note: read all holy books again). It must have been great in those days when God used to pop round for a chat and let the 'prophets' know what the new rules were. Weird that he only used to appear to one person at a time.
"I've just been speaking to God."
"Oh yeah, what did he say?"
He gave me alll kinds of new rules.
"Oh no, not more rules. Anything else?"
"Errr, yeah......he said that, um, if you all follow me I will become a great king of a totally bodacious nation.
"Fuck off!"
"Straight up. I'm the Daddy now."
"So what do we have to do?"
"Well, seeing as he only speaks to me, when I'm alone of course, you've got to do everything I say or face the wrath of God. I'll start with a sandwich."
"They haven't been invented yet."
"Okay, just a pitta pocket with some hummus or something then."
"Yes, your majesty."
|
|
|
|
Koli 
"Striving lackadaisically for perfection."
|
Posted - 07/28/2007 : 14:15:05
|
| BiggerBoat is in danger of underestimating the scope for the word of God to be distorted. He implies that the original prophets might have tweaked the messages they allegedly heard from God to feather their own nests. Heaven forfend. Other factors include the handing down of the stories orally for many generations, and translation from one language to another. I think this may explain the way some sects end up doing strange things like handling dangerous snakes during church services. |
|
|
|
Koli
"Striving lackadaisically for perfection."
|
Posted - 07/28/2007 : 14:16:47
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beanmimo
Didn't Christopher Columbo circumscise the globe with a large clipper.
 |
|
|
|
Koli
"Striving lackadaisically for perfection."
|
Posted - 07/28/2007 : 14:25:29
|
quote:
Originally posted by TitanPa
So you anti-Circumcisonists must also be agaist...
Tattoos
Earrings
Nose Rings
Nipple Rings
Belly Rings
Face Lifts
Boob Jobs
Sex Changes
Lip Injections
Hair Transplants
Mole Removals
Skin Bleaching
Hair Coloring
Never alter how God made you. Right?
I think the debate here is fundamentally about what parents have the right to do to their children without their informed consent. It's not really about body modification per se.
For the record, I don't enjoy the sight of large tattoos on either sex, am fascinated by the idea of nipple rings, dislike rings through noses and hate the idea that women might feel pressure to have their breats enlarged to please men. I haven't modified my kids' bodies in any way, though if they decide to make minor modifications when they're mature enough to make that decision that's fine by me. To my mind it's all about informed consent/decision-making. |
|
|
|
BaftaBaby 
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 07/28/2007 : 15:26:23
|
quote:
Originally posted by BiggerBoat
"I've just been speaking to God."
"Oh yeah, what did he say?"
He gave me alll kinds of new rules.
"Oh no, not more rules. Anything else?"
"Errr, yeah......he said that, um, if you all follow me I will become a great king of a totally bodacious nation.
"Fuck off!"
"Straight up. I'm the Daddy now."
"So what do we have to do?"
"Well, seeing as he only speaks to me, when I'm alone of course, you've got to do everything I say or face the wrath of God. I'll start with a sandwich."
"They haven't been invented yet."
"Okay, just a pitta pocket with some hummus or something then."
"Yes, your majesty."
How they rejected you to write the screenplay for Evan Almighty I'll never understand
|
|
|
|
GHcool
"Forever a curious character."
|
Posted - 07/28/2007 : 20:45:48
|
quote:
Originally posted by BiggerBoat
quote:
Originally posted by GHcool
quote:
Originally posted by BiggerBoat
Seeing as none of this was covered in any of the holy books, and being devoid of any kind of religous sentiment myself, how am I supposed to know whether this act is right or wrong (that's GOOD or EVIL to you religous types I guess)?
I hate to point this out, BiggerBoat, but your 100% wrong. Genesis chapter 17 deals explicitly with the commandment to perform circumcisions. To summarize:
After the birth of his first son, Ishmael, through his wife's maid, God speaks to Abram promising him that he will father two great nations: one through Ishamel and the other through another child that will be born from his wife, Sarai, who, until that point, could not bare children. God also promises that the descendants of this unborn child (later named Isaac) will inherit what will later be known as the biblical "Land of Israel" (not to be confused with the modern "State of Israel"). God then commands Abram to circumcise himself and all of his descendants forever as a sign of this covenent. God then changes Abram's name to Abraham and Sarai's name to Sarah.
Whether the above makes sense, is impossible, or is historical truth or not is irrelevent here because most anti-circumcision activists aren't interested in debunking the entire Bible. The fact is that circumcision is more than just a tradition or custom for practicing Jews and Muslims; it is a commandment from God that is followed with love and pride.
On the other hand, the Bible does not command people who aren't Abraham's descendants (or identify themselves as one) to circumcise their males. Therefore, the majority of uncircumcised males in Britain, Australia, etc. can sleep soundly knowing they aren't breaking any biblical laws by not being circumcised. Not all the commandments in the Torah apply to everyone universally (in fact, very few do).
Well, well, there it is in black and white (mental note: read all holy books again). It must have been great in those days when God used to pop round for a chat and let the 'prophets' know what the new rules were. Weird that he only used to appear to one person at a time.
That's actually not true either if we're going by the word of the Bible. Exodus is full of accounts of God appearing before "the people." |
|
|
|
duh 
"catpurrs"
|
Posted - 07/28/2007 : 22:04:29
|
quote:
Originally posted by GHcool
That's actually not true either if we're going by the word of the Bible. Exodus is full of accounts of God appearing before "the people."
I am a person of faith, but for the sake of discussion, I offer this:
I once read 'The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind' by Julian Jaynes
Some folks found Jaynes' theory to be promising, while others poo-pooed it.
I have only a layperson's knowledge of the brain, but based on my experiences, I think Jaynes' theory has a ring of truth.
When I was a child, I frequently had auditory hallucinations; I've always supposed that this is commonplace, but I haven't encountered very many other folks who will admit to it.
One of the most compelling hallucinations occurred when I was a first grader on the school playground. I was extremely shy and fearful of the other children. One of the meanest girls in school had a little sister who was in kindergarten, who was crippled and walked with braces.
One day, I saw the crippled sister fall and crumple onto the ground. I literally heard God say to me, "Go and pick her up." Despite my shyness and my fear, I went and lifted the younger child back to her feet.
Her sister then came over and yelled at me that everyone was supposed to leave the girl to work it out on her own. I said nothing in response. How does one explain that God is not to be ignored or disobeyed?
So, I may have actually had a spiritual experience, or I may have had an auditory hallucination. But because of that experience, Julian Jaynes' theory didn't seem so far fetched to me. |
|
|
|
BiggerBoat
"Pass me the harpoon"
|
Posted - 07/28/2007 : 22:46:07
|
quote:
Originally posted by GHcool
That's actually not true either if we're going by the word of the Bible. Exodus is full of accounts of God appearing before "the people."
What, the burning bush and then appearing 'as a cloud'? Speaking personally, I don't think I'd be falling to my knees at such things.
I really don't want to come across as being anti-religion, but I do read about these things and wonder why these Gods of different religions don't make their presence known by doing something truly spectacular, something beyond the bounds of possibility - and doing it now, in modern times, rather than us having to rely on ancient and oft misinterpreted ancient texts.
Considering the number of religous wars there have been, one undeniable act could unify the world. I'm no deity but that seems like a no-brainer to me. |
|
|
|
GHcool
"Forever a curious character."
|
Posted - 07/28/2007 : 22:55:19
|
quote:
Originally posted by duh
quote:
Originally posted by GHcool
That's actually not true either if we're going by the word of the Bible. Exodus is full of accounts of God appearing before "the people."
One day, I saw the crippled sister fall and crumple onto the ground. I literally heard God say to me, "Go and pick her up." Despite my shyness and my fear, I went and lifted the younger child back to her feet.
Whether you are/were a prophet or not, I'm sure nobody would argue that you didn't do the right thing in that situation.
I offer another example, but much less convincing ...
When my stepmother was pregnant with what she knew was going to be a girl, she had a dream that took place after the baby girl was born. In the dream, my stepmother addressed the girl with the name Sophie. She woke up from the dream and claimed that now she knew that the baby's name was going to be Sophie. My father wasn't comfortable at first because there was already a baby in the family (a cousin) who's name is Sophie that we had just visited for Thanksgiving. We have another cousin in New York named Sophie as well. Both Sophies were named for their great-grandmother (my father's great-aunt by marriage). My stepmother didn't give in and told my father that God had just told her that the baby's name is Sophie and that's what she wanted.
When the baby was born, they named the baby Sophie and the world-wide family reaction was one of confusion. My grandmother's first reaction was, a Hebrew idiom which roughly translates to "What are you talking about?" Today, the baby's name is Sophie and my stepmother's dream her dream came true. Furthermore, this isn't the first "prophecy" my stepmother had that came true.
So the question is this: Does an idea count as a prophecy when it is completely within the prophet's power to make the idea become a reality? My feeling is that it isn't. If I had a dream that I was tying my shoes, and then I woke up the next day and tied my shoes, I don't think that makes me a prophet. However, since the dream has already come true, and if one believes that everything that is true is God's doing, then it follows that God must have made it true, a view I don't support. |
|
|
|
GHcool
"Forever a curious character."
|
Posted - 07/28/2007 : 23:00:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by BiggerBoat
quote:
Originally posted by GHcool
That's actually not true either if we're going by the word of the Bible. Exodus is full of accounts of God appearing before "the people."
What, the burning bush and then appearing 'as a cloud'? Speaking personally, I don't think I'd be falling to my knees at such things.
I really don't want to come across as being anti-religion, but I do read about these things and wonder why these Gods of different religions don't make their presence known by doing something truly spectacular, something beyond the bounds of possibility - and doing it now, in modern times, rather than us having to rely on ancient and oft misinterpreted ancient texts.
Considering the number of religous wars there have been, one undeniable act could unify the world. I'm no deity but that seems like a no-brainer to me.
Firstly, you might fall on your knees if the burning bush told you to do so (which is what it told Moses to do) and especially if you lived in the ancient Near East.
Secondly, I recommend renting Oh God, the George Burns movie. John Denver's character asks God many of the same questions you're asking. Some of the answers he gets are less than satisfactory (such as "That's not how I work"), but some of them are actually quite mature for a 1970s comedy. |
|
|
|
Whippersnapper. 
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 07/28/2007 : 23:27:03
|
I recommend Randy Newman's "God's Song (That's Why I Love Mankind)". 
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
circumcision controversies
