|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun May 02, 2010 11:21 am
Lumanny the Space Jew Mau Aita Dirac ---- stare , I agree with Lumany, we should just KILL THE HYGINE ARGUMENT ALREADY exclaim ... Let's stay on topic (ie, the religious aspects of circumcision exclaim )... ----again If you want to do it then go ahead, I'm not gonna stop you; I encourage you to stay true to your God and whatever covenants thou hast with it... ninja ----but I would kill someone if they tried to circumcise my son!!! burning_eyes burning_eyes burning_eyes burning_eyes burning_eyes burning_eyes burning_eyes burning_eyes burning_eyes Thank you! The hygiene argument is a valid debate, but not here. I brought it up because hygiene was an influence in many religious traditions! With circumsions it was hygiene and a commandment. So despite what you all insist on pushing, it is still a valid argument.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 02, 2010 2:20 pm
Underworld Priestess Lumanny the Space Jew Mau Aita Dirac ---- stare , I agree with Lumany, we should just KILL THE HYGINE ARGUMENT ALREADY exclaim ... Let's stay on topic (ie, the religious aspects of circumcision exclaim )... ----again If you want to do it then go ahead, I'm not gonna stop you; I encourage you to stay true to your God and whatever covenants thou hast with it... ninja ----but I would kill someone if they tried to circumcise my son!!! burning_eyes burning_eyes burning_eyes burning_eyes burning_eyes burning_eyes burning_eyes burning_eyes burning_eyes Thank you! The hygiene argument is a valid debate, but not here. I brought it up because hygiene was an influence in many religious traditions! With circumsions it was hygiene and a commandment. So despite what you all insist on pushing, it is still a valid argument. Prove that hygiene was a factor in G-d's deision to command circumcision. Prove it. Prove that the Rashi's parents and the Rambam's parents and the Ramban's parents and the Rashbam's parents thought about the hygiene as well as the commandment and didn't just do it only because G-d said so. Oh wait, you can't. Leave the hygiene debate for a more general circumcision thread. This thread is only about the religious aspect, which is a horse of a different color.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 02, 2010 3:31 pm
Lumanny the Space Jew Underworld Priestess Lumanny the Space Jew Mau Aita Dirac ---- stare , I agree with Lumany, we should just KILL THE HYGINE ARGUMENT ALREADY exclaim ... Let's stay on topic (ie, the religious aspects of circumcision exclaim )... ----again If you want to do it then go ahead, I'm not gonna stop you; I encourage you to stay true to your God and whatever covenants thou hast with it... ninja ----but I would kill someone if they tried to circumcise my son!!! burning_eyes burning_eyes burning_eyes burning_eyes burning_eyes burning_eyes burning_eyes burning_eyes burning_eyes Thank you! The hygiene argument is a valid debate, but not here. I brought it up because hygiene was an influence in many religious traditions! With circumsions it was hygiene and a commandment. So despite what you all insist on pushing, it is still a valid argument. Prove that hygiene was a factor in G-d's deision to command circumcision. Prove it. Prove that the Rashi's parents and the Rambam's parents and the Ramban's parents and the Rashbam's parents thought about the hygiene as well as the commandment and didn't just do it only because G-d said so. Oh wait, you can't. Leave the hygiene debate for a more general circumcision thread. This thread is only about the religious aspect, which is a horse of a different color. You can't prove that a part of it was not about hygiene either. So why not just let people express their opinions whatever they may be?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 02, 2010 5:21 pm
---Madaam Underworld Priestess... we all know Leviticus is full of good ideas... stare (Sarcasim completly intended)
-Leviticus 24:16 And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death. burning_eyes burning_eyes burning_eyes
-Leviticus 20:9 For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him. burning_eyes burning_eyes burning_eyes
-Leviticus 25:44-46 (Non-אלוהים worshipping Slaves, ie non-jews / christians / muslims / bahais / rastas / samaritains) burning_eyes burning_eyes burning_eyes
-Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. burning_eyes burning_eyes burning_eyes
---Unless stoning blasphemers to death, and killing homosexual men (note lesbians are not directly mentioned once in all the thirty-two thousand verses in the sixty-six book two part anthology that is the bible) is a good idea, then you're Leviticus argument holds as much water in mine eyes as would a shattered cup... I reject Leviticus, but as all scripture (whether written or not) I consider it apart of the Metagalactic Bible (all sacred texts & speeches)... but I encourage you to stay true to you're God and your Faith, to quote the Missioner from Serenity "I don't care what you belive... Just belive it!",
---If you want to circumscise your son, then go ahead... cool but again I will NEVER let anyone do that to my son though exclaim exclaim exclaim
---If you must continue with the hygenie argument, read my first comment and shut it! stressed The topic is not hygeine it is spirituality, metaphysics, and theology... 3nodding
---Devineseraph... The Tatoo argument is silly, honestly, you can argue against circumcision with Leviticus itself, you don't have to make up a religion to do so... and the circumcision-baptism comparision made by Underworld Priestess is equally silly, there is no bodily transformation involved with baptism, the argument you were responding to was should you be capeable of removing the nervous tissue (equivalent to that of the tip of your finger) from your son's Pen*s... I have respect for both of you, and your opinions just those last two arguments mentioned I had a difficult time wrapping my head around...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 02, 2010 7:00 pm
Mau Aita Dirac ---Madaam Underworld Priestess... we all know Leviticus is full of good ideas... stare (Sarcasim completly intended) - Leviticus 24:16 And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death. burning_eyes burning_eyes burning_eyes - Leviticus 20:9 For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him. burning_eyes burning_eyes burning_eyes - Leviticus 25:44-46 (Non-אלוהים worshipping Slaves, ie non-jews / christians / muslims / bahais / rastas / samaritains) burning_eyes burning_eyes burning_eyes - Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. burning_eyes burning_eyes burning_eyes ---Unless stoning blasphemers to death, and killing homosexual men (note lesbians are not directly mentioned once in all the thirty-two thousand verses in the sixty-six book two part anthology that is the bible) is a good idea, then you're Leviticus argument holds as much water in mine eyes as would a shattered cup... I reject Leviticus, but as all scripture (whether written or not) I consider it apart of the Metagalactic Bible (all sacred texts & speeches)... but I encourage you to stay true to you're God and your Faith, to quote the Missioner from Serenity " I don't care what you belive... Just belive it!", ---If you want to circumscise your son, then go ahead... cool but again I will NEVER let anyone do that to my son though exclaim exclaim exclaim --- If you must continue with the hygenie argument, read my first comment and shut it! stressed The topic is not hygeine it is spirituality, metaphysics, and theology... 3nodding ---Devineseraph... The Tatoo argument is silly, honestly, you can argue against circumcision with Leviticus itself, you don't have to make up a religion to do so... and the circumcision-baptism comparision made by Underworld Priestess is equally silly, there is no bodily transformation involved with baptism, the argument you were responding to was should you be capeable of removing the nervous tissue (equivalent to that of the tip of your finger) from your son's Pen*s... I have respect for both of you, and your opinions just those last two arguments mentioned I had a difficult time wrapping my head around... If that is how you think than you are completely missing my point of the argument and I'll just wait to post again until someone understands that things can influence spiritual statements.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 03, 2010 4:27 am
Lumanny the Space Jew Vengeful Elegance I don't think it's right to do something like that to an infant. If he grows up and wants to do it, that is up to him. I don't really care if it is a religious practice. I believe in separation of church and state. If it is wrong it is wrong. I am tired of people hiding behind religion and doing horrible things in the name if God or whoever they worship. It is painful and unnecessary and I will not be subjecting my sons to that barbaric procedure. WTF? Separation of Church and State has nothing to do with this. I think it does. Otherwise I wouldn't have said it. I don't think something should be legal just because it is a religious practice. I don't think that circumcision should be legal unless a grown man who can make his own decision wants it done. Separation of church and state is a perfectly relevant argument for my views.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 03, 2010 5:37 pm
Underworld Priestess Lumanny the Space Jew Underworld Priestess Lumanny the Space Jew Mau Aita Dirac ---- stare , I agree with Lumany, we should just KILL THE HYGINE ARGUMENT ALREADY exclaim ... Let's stay on topic (ie, the religious aspects of circumcision exclaim )... ----again If you want to do it then go ahead, I'm not gonna stop you; I encourage you to stay true to your God and whatever covenants thou hast with it... ninja ----but I would kill someone if they tried to circumcise my son!!! burning_eyes burning_eyes burning_eyes burning_eyes burning_eyes burning_eyes burning_eyes burning_eyes burning_eyes Thank you! The hygiene argument is a valid debate, but not here. I brought it up because hygiene was an influence in many religious traditions! With circumsions it was hygiene and a commandment. So despite what you all insist on pushing, it is still a valid argument. Prove that hygiene was a factor in G-d's deision to command circumcision. Prove it. Prove that the Rashi's parents and the Rambam's parents and the Ramban's parents and the Rashbam's parents thought about the hygiene as well as the commandment and didn't just do it only because G-d said so. Oh wait, you can't. Leave the hygiene debate for a more general circumcision thread. This thread is only about the religious aspect, which is a horse of a different color. You can't prove that a part of it was not about hygiene either. So why not just let people express their opinions whatever they may be? Since it cannot be proven, it is merely conjecture. That is NOT wht this thread is for.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 03, 2010 5:38 pm
Vengeful Elegance Lumanny the Space Jew Vengeful Elegance I don't think it's right to do something like that to an infant. If he grows up and wants to do it, that is up to him. I don't really care if it is a religious practice. I believe in separation of church and state. If it is wrong it is wrong. I am tired of people hiding behind religion and doing horrible things in the name if God or whoever they worship. It is painful and unnecessary and I will not be subjecting my sons to that barbaric procedure. WTF? Separation of Church and State has nothing to do with this. I think it does. Otherwise I wouldn't have said it. I don't think something should be legal just because it is a religious practice. I don't think that circumcision should be legal unless a grown man who can make his own decision wants it done. Separation of church and state is a perfectly relevant argument for my views. It would not be infringing upon Separation of Church and State ulnless it were illegal because of Religious prejudice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 05, 2010 5:16 pm
----Sorry I find that I have to correct myself on a false statement made earlier, Lesbianism is metioned in the Bible though not it the Tanakh, (Romans 1:26)
----Again I would never circumcise my son, but I will not stop you from doing so...
----I have nothing against the Tanakh but I'm not a fan of Leviticus...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 04, 2010 10:03 am
As far as I'm concerned, if it's not in the Tanakh it's not in the Bible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 04, 2010 10:23 am
Most baby boys in America are circumcised anyway.
I hope I never have a boy. I dont like circumcision, but like in Judaism, it is said to do so in the Qur'an.
I'm torn.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 04, 2010 10:41 am
This pickled vegetable...I'd just like to throw out there that from a sexually active adult's perspective, I'd much rather suck on a circumcised p***s than a non-circumcised one.
Foreskins are just gross. ... could kick your a** !!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 05, 2010 4:17 pm
Renkon Root This pickled vegetable...I'd just like to throw out there that from a sexually active adult's perspective, I'd much rather suck on a circumcised p***s than a non-circumcised one.
Foreskins are just gross. ... could kick your a** !! Um, let's not go there, please. That would be applicable in a general circumcision thread, but something tells me that's not a part of the religious argument.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 08, 2010 10:31 pm
Lumanny the Space Jew divineseraph Lumanny the Space Jew divineseraph No. Just no. Nobody has the right to mutilate another human being without consent. If you want to have your foreskin cut off, by all means go right ahead. But don't force it on your children. Would you force a tattoo of a star of David on your child? Would you allow a Christian to tattoo a crucifix on theirs? It's not an issue of the religion being bad or the practice being bad. The part that is bad is forcing a permanent bodily change on a child. Tatoos are strongly against Jewish Law. Don't care. My new religion says that all babies must be tattooed with the Mark of the Living God, on their backs. Should I be allowed to do this? If you believe your god commanded it. Just because you believe your god commands something doesn't make it right. Since a baby can't give its opinion on any religious matters, there are certain times when I think it's okay to go ahead and do what your religion wants you to do to the kid: dress them like your religion wants, feed them what your religion wants, whatever. But when we're talking about permanent things, I think you'd better have a pretty damn good reason to do it besides your religion. Giving a baby a tattoo -something both painful and permanent- is ******** up. Even if it is a part of a person's religion, that gives them no right to permanently mark their child. I mean, maybe that kid will grow up and say "Wow, I'm sure glad I have this religious tattoo on me." But there's also a good chance that the kid will not want anything to do with the religion and will be pissed that their parents were presumptuous enough to try and force their religion onto the kid. Besides, where do we draw the line? Some people's religions require female circumcisions and scarification of children, which are just cruel. Yes, they're part of the parents' belief system and culture, but that gives them no right to permanently scar their child. Some things are just wrong, no matter what a person's religion tells them otherwise.
As far as male circumcision goes, obviously it's not as bad as tattooing, scarring, or in other ways harming a child for religious purposes. But it's the same idea of permanently marking a child as belonging to a certain religion without their consent. Just because someone's Jewish doesn't mean that their kid won't grow up and want to convert to another religion or have no religion at all. So, while I'm not against male circumcision if it's for medical or hygienic purposes, I don't think religion should be the sole factor in deciding to circumcise a boy, because to an extent I think it's the hygiene thing that separates the male circumcision issue from the tattoo issue or the female circumcision issue or any other permanent religious body modification on a child.
Then again, as I've never been circumcised, I can't really say that it actually does bother anyone when they grow up. It would be interesting to see a poll of circumcised men to find out how many are happy with their parents decision and how many are not. If the majority of men say that it doesn't bother them and that they'd do the same if they had a son, then maybe circumcision is closer to religious clothing for children than to religious tattoos for children and I'm just making a big deal out of nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 09, 2010 1:40 am
I like the idea of following one's religion.
At the stake of having to decide something forever physical for an infant, however, I must frown upon.
Sure, I don't care if others do it.
But, I AM pissed off I had my skin sliced without having the decision to. It wasn't even a RELIGIOUS reason, they just had it chopped off! Mother f*ckers....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
