Interesting.

You have crazy people on all sides of all coins. There are crazy athiests, their are crazy "christians", there are crazy Muslims, crazy Hindu's.

What one must be able to do is discern the crazy from the true.

To blame Christinity for this would be a misappropriation of crazy onto the true, as shown by over gereralizers like Zombie.

I would say that baptism is the new circumcision. Just as circumcision had to start with adults in the first generation, baptism had to start with adults, however what it comes down to is that baptism has seemingly replaced circumcision as the sign of the covenant.

Baptism has no actual influence on someones eternal state (in terms of water). It is a symbol or sign that you believe. And just as in the old covenant when they would circumcise the children as a promise that they would be raised in that covenant and the parents were following the terms of that covenant, so to do children get baptised.

It is the "He and his whole family" believed concept.

Those with limited vision will have limited ability to percieve the truth of any situation. Some poeple on here show that time and time again.

Americna loves their emotional reactions to any event that is pro or con against their cause or bias.

Short, terse, meaningless posts may win popularity points with the foolish and simple, but those who are interested in what is really happening in any situation will not be impressed by foolish one line mimicry.

Nanc,

Although this may be true, It also many not be true. There is a continual habit by many self proclaimed "christians" (even though christians only existed in the minds of unbeleivers in the first century church)to post "apologetic" material that is false, not fully checked, or mistaken.

Their desire to prove any little view that has developed from an extrabiblical tradition sometimes causes their ambarassment in the eyes of the rest of the world.

Surely I can not say whether this is intrinsically true or not, but I would urge caution to simply throw up an apologetic arguement too hastily, just because it seems to fit the circumstance.

You must remember, that in terms of miraculous events, miracles are the least likely course of explanation, thus why they are miracles.

In this instance it will be completely logical for anyone who does not believe in the Bible as the word of God to say, "Well, God didn't know, because the Bible was written by men, and they may have gotten it right, but probably one through Trial and error. Over time they would be able to observe when it was most effecting, quickest healing, and least damaging to the child for the child to be circumcised."

And in this case, observation and trial and error would be a more acceptable answer in the world of logic (when by itself without a logical or reasoned evidence for the conlclusion that God exists, and then a logical and reasoned conclusion as to the fact that the God of the Bible is that God who exists, or first cause.)

That is pretty funny right there. Gotta admit it.

Zombie, I am not disagreeing with your post that it is more logical on base premise to go with the stance that it was not a miraculous unveiling of facts, but rather a learned observation.

There are however some logical and reasoned or semi-reasoned cases for the existence of an originator being. The argument then goes to whether that being (if existant) is personal or not, then to what degree is that being personal, is that being limited to the description of any one religion etc.

I do not see what your problem is with my post. I don't know if it is because you read it, did not understand it and thought it might be a threat, so you had to harass it or what.

Asking questions without character assasination is not a bad thing to do. I would explain it to you more willingly if you presented yourself more willing to understand the explanation for what it is.

Do you really want it explained more, or are you trying to earn popularity points with the foolish one line mimicry crowd? (This is an honest statement. If you are not going to actually pay attention to the explanation to understand it, I am not going to waste my time.)

It may be the case that the Hebrews conducted circumcision for purposed reasons, however just because we find this infromation now, it does not intrinsically mean that the Hebrews conducted circumcision for this reason in particular.

Are you taking it that they came to the conclusion to circumcise on their own, or that their desire to circumcise came from a surpra natural world being?

Although it is nice to know now, we cannot simply transpose it back in time and say this is one of the reasons why the Hebrews did it. (atleast not on its own accord)

So Skizziks, are you then saying that if God did existe, he would obviously not want us to cut off a limb that was decaying due to gangrene? Would that not be mutilation?

Or is mutilation only when it is not in need of a medical procedure?

Are you then completely accepting that God would not want someone to pierce their body and it would be justified for Him to be displeased with them because they did so?

What is your definition of mutilation and what is an is not accepting in terms of affecting the natural and primary state of the human body upon birth?

These are all honest questions. I would expect honest answers. Also answers that make sense logically.

skizz, you have not answered my questions at this point.

By your definition body piercing is wrong or mutilation. Therefore since a God who calls for mutilation is terrible, a God who condemns piercing would be acceptable? Would you have a problem with that God disaproving of someone who gets piercings?

Also, when I referred to the natural birth state, I am qualifying that the state in question being changed is the initial birth state. If you were unchanged from birth, and then your arm was infected by gangrene, would you cut it off in order to keep the infection from spreading? Would that not be mutilation?

If your answer is "yes I would remove the arm," why is that justified? If it is justified because of benefit later (even though having your arm cut off causes much emotional and psychological stress, including phantom pains) in terms of medical health, why would circumcision not be beneficial if it prevents HIV potential like Corky has stated that it might (key word being might).

Please answer, without beating around the bush. Thanks.

I am trying to evaluate whether your conclusion is logical, whether you are angry because of mutilation, or simply angry because God might be involved. Either is equally possible.

Nanc read this article

Similarities between Pagan and Christian practices

www.religioustolerance.org

The Bible is not original. The bible was created using previous religions.

#55 | Posted by jackass at 2009-10-19 01:47 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Jackass, theoretically and philosophically, all Christians are aware, claim, and know that the Bible is not original. Even the Bible declares iteself that it is the recording of the word of God which has bee existent from the beginning. It is also clear in the Bible that not all of the information available was provided in its covers as on two occasions information was not to be written down, and one occasion ingested in order that it was not known. (I am not making the case here that this actually happened, but rather using the source to show you that it is stated within this source what it is not original)

Also you must take into account that timespan that God was supposedly working with and through Man in relationship. It would begin at the foundation of human society. The scripture is clear that the Bible was written down later than that point. There are things that took place in the beginning in which we do not have a detailed account. This would include different perceptions of what God had said by different people ( as not all would follow and some would make up their own systems catered to them as the most important person to God)

If God did exist in a capacity similar to the Biblical description (whether the Bible is true or not) then it would only be natural for the intrinsic truth coming from God in the beginning to be distorted and changed depending on the peoples of the specific times. In this case you would get different religious systems with similarities as they had the same original source.

Some would be more accurate, some would be less accurate - completely incorrect.

Your argument does not rule out the possibility of the Bible to be authoritive (in the event that it is true, and accurate to the original proposed system from God's first relationship with man).

Also, when I referred to the natural birth state, I am qualifying that the state in question being changed is the initial birth state. If you were unchanged from birth, and then your arm was infected by gangrene, would you cut it off in order to keep the infection from spreading? Would that not be mutilation?.....62 | Posted by ExpsRedemption

......why are Christians so dishonest.....this is a FALSE ANALOGY........

......cutting off a babies penis, and cutting off a gangrenous arm are both mutilations.......

......however.......there is no requirement to cut off a healthy part of a healthy body......only a sick, twisted, anti-human religion would promote that........

#69 | Posted by skizziks at 2009-10-19 02:00 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

You are missing the point here, and you also failed to include the part of the quote where I qualified IF the gangrene instance has health benefits, and IF corky's story about the circumcision preventing HIV more effectively is true, why is it so much worse? It is the healthy body part aspect?

Ok, here is another for instance. Two is fact.

1. Someone gets their abnoids (sic) removed or sealed bacause they have been having bloody noses often and wish to decrease the occurence. Their abnoids might simply be functioning as they were, healthily, however inconveniently for that person. They removed them for a benefit of less blood loss potential and comfort. Is that wrong in the same league as circumcision? (Take into account that most times parents choose to get this done, not the child, just like circumcision)

2. Someone is getting sore throats a lot. Their paretns decide to have their tonsils taken out because they don't like the child complaining about the sore throat, and know that they may get worse sore throats if they stay in, even though they are healthy. In this instance the child is simply not able to tolerate the pain, it is not that the tonsils are unhealthy.

The parents get the tonsils removed and the child still has sore throats simply not as bad, or has a lower risk of sore throats.

In both of these above occasions the procedure done would be mutilation, and mutilation of healthy body parts, for the sake of a lowered risk of some concern.

Is this equally as wrong as circumcision in the event that circumsision provides the benefits that Corky supposes with his article?

skizz,

I am trying to have a discussion. It seems you don't like to do this. You do not try to understand my position at all. I try to understand yours.

If you want to throw out insults to score points with the foolish one line mimicry crowd feel free. However if that is the case, you have no intrinsically true ground to place your foot on and claim that I am the deluded one, nor that I do not have the capability to find if your points and reactions are logical or not.

As you sound, you seem to think that someone who follows the example that Christ set is automatically stupid and incapable intellectually. That is what your comment about not being able to evaluate anything would cause one to conclude. Is this true?

I don't particularly see the need for circumcision. I am not pro or con circumcision.

I hope for your sake of consistency you are not pro abortion. That in itself would be mutilation that causes physological and mental strain on the mother, as she removes part of her body even though it may be healthy. Also, if you say it is not part of her body, then she whould have no right over it is this not true?

I would like to know where you stand on abortion and what you say about that instance in the event that you are pro-choice.

You are missing the point here,

......#84 | Posted by ExpsRedemption

.......I get the point.....your point is not logical.......you are working with some wonky analogies........

.....stick to the facts:

1. You think people should continue mutilating babies because god told them to.

2. I think it is wrong to mutilate babies.

.....I know what side you are on......I am saying that you are wrong, the mutilation of babies is wrong.....and that if your GOD JUSTIFIES IT , then YOUR GOD IS WRONG........

#95 | Posted by skizziks at 2009-10-19 02:39 PM | Reply |

Skizz,

It is obvious that you do not understand where I am coming from, but continue to believe that you do.

I do not take a stance for or against circumcision. This does not have anything to do with God in the context at this point. This has to do with your perception of what mutilation is, and whether you are logically consistent with your life perspectives.

You charge me with being incapable of making any kind of evaluations, and yet you are unable to answer questions truthfully, without deflecting to some teriary issue in regard to the person asking you a question.

Your perception of truth is off. You made your decision how I think before you started speaking with me. You make conclusions before you have evidence, and that my friend is illogical.

Don't charge someone else with being incapable of evaluating things when you yourself tweek over a conversation and somehow make it about your insecurity about a God (might may or may not be real).

It would appear as though you are the one who has the problem interacting intelligently, not anyone else.

If this is a mischaracterization, I apologize, however, this conclusion is what the presented evidence leads one to. Keep in mind, this is not about justifying it with God. This is about the intrinsic truth of the matter, which others are discussing without God being involved.

Feel free to correct this. Just try not to falsely mischaracterize someone. Atleast speak in terms of possibility if you arent 100% sure (seeing as one can never be 100% sure).

This is fine. I agree with the position of being anti abortion but realizing that people have the right to make the wrong choice. You cannot legislate morality.

How about the abnoids question, or the tonsil question. I stated that they may not be proper examples. I never said they were deal breakers. I want to know your position. That is what you do in a discussion.

Otherwise people run around calling other people names without ever coming to any sort of understanding of one another.

Also, when I referred to the natural birth state, I am qualifying that the state in question being changed is the initial birth state. If you were unchanged from birth, and then your arm was infected by gangrene, would you cut it off in order to keep the infection from spreading? Would that not be mutilation?.....62 | Posted by ExpsRedemption

......why are Christians so dishonest.....this is a FALSE ANALOGY........

......cutting off a babies penis, and cutting off a gangrenous arm are both mutilations.......

......however.......there is no requirement to cut off a healthy part of a healthy body......only a sick, twisted, anti-human religion would promote that........

If you are referring to me with your first statement here, you are calling me dishonest. Due too that fact that you placed this underneath a quote of something I said, and the fact that some would categorize me a "christian" it would lead one to believe that you were calling me dishonest.

1. It was my analogy
2. I would be characterized by some as a "christian"
3. You responded to me with your charge of dishonest christians using false analogies.

You do not think this is calling me dishonest? Are you stating then that it is a potentially false analogy? Are you asking me if it is a false analogy? Or did you deem it as false, and then appropriate that I was dishonest?

......really ?.......

.....no mr.redemption....this site is for the neurotic projection of our fantasy personas......protected by the curtain of web based anonymity........

.......if you want the "intrinsic truth" chat room, you are on the wrong web site........

#110 | Posted by skizziks at 2009-10-19 03:07 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

#1. You were not asking me any questions to answer.
#2. You seem to claim intellectual superiority, yet you will not answer the questions at hand without coercion or repetition.
#3. You attack me for untruthfulness and increduality, and yet according to your own admission above, you are living in a fantasy world, where intrinsic truth does not matter, yet you charge me with being influenced by fals supposition of an incredible superstition.
You enter a world that is escaping truth and you lecture me on being dishonest?

What exactly is your standard of what is intellectual, truthful, or honest in your fantasy world? If you can do whatever you want in this fantasy world and you are not held to any standart of truth, intellect, logic or honesty, why do you hold myself and others to these standards? Can we not be an fantastical as we want in this fantasy world of "neurotic projection of persona"?

Why is your fantasy neurotic projection of persona more acceptable than someone elses fantasy neurotic projection of persona?

What are the standards of your fantasy? Andy why are you pushing those standards upon my fantasy (in the event that this is a fantasy world.)

Are you saying that you have a problem with fantasy Christians who are speaking about a fantasy, fantasy God (since God is a fantasy in the real world, then that some God would be a fantasy fantasy God)?

You can push your sense of fantasy absolutes on me, yet even when I don't push anything onto you, you rebel against my fantasy fantasy God even though he is not involved?

And you tell me that I am the one that is out there?

If this is what you believe, then I would say that it is you who has no room to speak about logic, intellect, truthfulness, consistency, honsesty or any of the above.

And before you rebut, this is only if this is true. If it is not true, great.

"I can't believe that some Rabbis actually suck on the wound afterward. Not being gross, just stating something a fact.

There was even a story of a Rabbi who gave a baby Herpes (the baby later died because of this.

Here's an excerpt from the article:

Under Jewish law, a mohel someone who performs circumcisions draws blood from the circumcision wound. Most mohels do it by hand with a suction device, but Fischer uses a practice rare outside strict Orthodox groups where he uses his mouth to draw blood after cutting the foreskin.

www.msnbc.msn.com"

That is very interesting, especially since they are no to drink blood, eat blood, or really have blood in their mouth from another person or animal.

Murphy, you are correct. Most of these religous reasons are not reasons at all. In the case of this man, in this current day, we have individuals who are trained to do this procedure properly. He does not have the knowledge and should not have done it.

Also, he did not state it was for a religious reason. HE felt he had to circumcise the child before Passover.

Diably, I figured I would carry it into the next day, however it seems as thought this conversation has been cut short and petered out.

Zombie,

1. The Catholic church is not conservative, it is stingy.
2. The Catholic church would not be considered Bible thumpers because most Catholics do not read, or are encouraged not to read their Bible.
3. Most priests and Bishops do not understand the Bible that well and the star-child of Catholics in Mother Theresa was pretty much a mystic.
4. I think you should say that the presumptuousness of murphy is astounding, not necessarily anyone else.

I appreciate you willingness to admit that.

Also, before I forget, did you have any questions about what was stated previously by me.

You had made the comment about me wanting to have a real conversation, however you never asked for any further clarification.

Is there anything that you really desire to be clarified to better understand what I was saying in that quote that you inquired as to whether it was meaningful or Christian psycho babble of sorts?

It had to do with post #20 and following. You did not understand what I was saying in the parentheses from what I take.