Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Posted: December 03 2009 at 13:27
Epignosis wrote:
We've all come to the table with our own ideas of what certain words mean, and with such a diverse bunch of cultures and experiences, the resultant discourse is rather...chaotic.
All an internet discussion can ever do is reaffirm our own opinions/thoughts/beliefs (which is why we are happy to become embroiled in them ) - anyone whose opinion can be changed by such discussions maybe never had any firm convictions in the first place, or is being exposed to them for the first time in a way that makes sense to them. I think this only looks superficially chaotic, then perhaps this is because I can see some of these points from the same (well similar) perspective as most the people saying them.
Lucky I'm Catholic... we don't cut off nothing of our bodies... Give me sometime... I have to read another two pages of answers to know what I miss...
Now, there's the thing - I expect that is the result of selective interpretation. My interpretation is that Paul (& Barnabas?) was asked whether gentiles who converted to judeo-christianity should be circumcised, and he decided that it would be unfair to expect adults to undergo that and probably thought it would scare off potential converts, so he said no - but he did say they should only eat kosher food (he later changed his mind on that too). He never said anything about the children and offspring born to converted gentiles and their descendants.
I think my point has been missed somewhere along the way.
The only reason I brought up circumcision was to point out that God supported child mutilation at some point, if you believe the Bible to be true. I don't care who was required and who wasn't; the point is that it shouldn't happen! Circumcision deadens sensation, causes an internal organ to be external and therefore be unprotected, and it is a brutal practice that has no logical reason behind it. You can say that it helps protect people from disease, but just as many studies show the contrary. Besides, if you wanna protect yourself, wear a condom!
It's the tip of your dick, people! You're cutting off a piece of your body! Does nobody see the insanity in that but me?!
If circumcision is so barbaric, then why do so many doctors today perform them?
Joined: November 18 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4900
Posted: December 03 2009 at 13:34
Epignosis wrote:
p0mt3 wrote:
Dean wrote:
jampa17 wrote:
Lucky I'm Catholic... we don't cut off nothing of our bodies... Give me sometime... I have to read another two pages of answers to know what I miss...
Now, there's the thing - I expect that is the result of selective interpretation. My interpretation is that Paul (& Barnabas?) was asked whether gentiles who converted to judeo-christianity should be circumcised, and he decided that it would be unfair to expect adults to undergo that and probably thought it would scare off potential converts, so he said no - but he did say they should only eat kosher food (he later changed his mind on that too). He never said anything about the children and offspring born to converted gentiles and their descendants.
I think my point has been missed somewhere along the way.
The only reason I brought up circumcision was to point out that God supported child mutilation at some point, if you believe the Bible to be true. I don't care who was required and who wasn't; the point is that it shouldn't happen! Circumcision deadens sensation, causes an internal organ to be external and therefore be unprotected, and it is a brutal practice that has no logical reason behind it. You can say that it helps protect people from disease, but just as many studies show the contrary. Besides, if you wanna protect yourself, wear a condom!
It's the tip of your dick, people! You're cutting off a piece of your body! Does nobody see the insanity in that but me?!
If circumcision is so barbaric, then why do so many doctors today perform them?
lol! ''Everybody's doing it, so it must be okay!"
Just as many doctors are against it nowadays than for it. I already addressed this. Conflicting studies set aside, find one logical reason for circumcision other than because God says so.
Have you ever watched a circumcision take place? I have. The baby is strapped to a table so it can't squirm, his penis is held in a clamp, then the doctor saws off the foreskin. The baby then typically cries out in terrible pain, then goes into shock. Yeah, REAL humane.
Lucky I'm Catholic... we don't cut off nothing of our bodies... Give me sometime... I have to read another two pages of answers to know what I miss...
Now, there's the thing - I expect that is the result of selective interpretation. My interpretation is that Paul (& Barnabas?) was asked whether gentiles who converted to judeo-christianity should be circumcised, and he decided that it would be unfair to expect adults to undergo that and probably thought it would scare off potential converts, so he said no - but he did say they should only eat kosher food (he later changed his mind on that too). He never said anything about the children and offspring born to converted gentiles and their descendants.
I think my point has been missed somewhere along the way.
The only reason I brought up circumcision was to point out that God supported child mutilation at some point, if you believe the Bible to be true. I don't care who was required and who wasn't; the point is that it shouldn't happen! Circumcision deadens sensation, causes an internal organ to be external and therefore be unprotected, and it is a brutal practice that has no logical reason behind it. You can say that it helps protect people from disease, but just as many studies show the contrary. Besides, if you wanna protect yourself, wear a condom!
It's the tip of your dick, people! You're cutting off a piece of your body! Does nobody see the insanity in that but me?!
If circumcision is so barbaric, then why do so many doctors today perform them?
lol! ''Everybody's doing it, so it must be okay!"
Not even close to what I said.
I guess I should go ahead and point out that quite a bit of what I've seen you argue recently has amounted to the following syllogism:
I don't believe x is good The Bible allows/commands x So the Bible isn't true.
Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057
Posted: December 03 2009 at 13:42
AmbianceMan wrote:
It's perfectly reasonable to outline what aspects a creator should have.
What? LOL how does that even make any sense? Think about what you just said. Let's say you make a drawing. Does that drawing get to tell you what kind of person you should be? No, it has no power over you.
Perfectly reasonable in that you have to outline what kind of thing you're talking about for an argument. God is usually omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, at least. We define it because an argument would be meaningless without a definition. You could say "God is beyond definition," but that would make anything you have to say (or indeed think) about the subject of God meaningless. This is a problem, because God may indeed be outside any human thought or perception if any sort of thing like that exists, but then if it is, it's not worth talking, or thinking, or worrying about.
Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5208
Posted: December 03 2009 at 13:45
When I did these, it was because it was a cultural norm and the parents requested it.
A nerve block is used and the actual removal is accomplished through a blunt crushing method that insures control of bleeding and better healing. No baby boy ever went into shock during my experience with these procedures.
There is a small signal that circumcised males transmit HPV less which means less cervical cancer in their partners. But the signal is small. There is also no evidence that any sexual dysfunction is caused. So medically it's a wash. But in general, we don't do pointless surgeries, this being a cultural exception. Many cultures pierce baby girl's ears which is a (significantly) lesser but similar cultural body alteration done against their will that hurts temporarily.
I'm actually glad that I don't have to do them anymore.
You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.
Joined: November 18 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4900
Posted: December 03 2009 at 13:46
Epignosis wrote:
p0mt3 wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
p0mt3 wrote:
Dean wrote:
jampa17 wrote:
Lucky I'm Catholic... we don't cut off nothing of our bodies... Give me sometime... I have to read another two pages of answers to know what I miss...
Now, there's the thing - I expect that is the result of selective interpretation. My interpretation is that Paul (& Barnabas?) was asked whether gentiles who converted to judeo-christianity should be circumcised, and he decided that it would be unfair to expect adults to undergo that and probably thought it would scare off potential converts, so he said no - but he did say they should only eat kosher food (he later changed his mind on that too). He never said anything about the children and offspring born to converted gentiles and their descendants.
I think my point has been missed somewhere along the way.
The only reason I brought up circumcision was to point out that God supported child mutilation at some point, if you believe the Bible to be true. I don't care who was required and who wasn't; the point is that it shouldn't happen! Circumcision deadens sensation, causes an internal organ to be external and therefore be unprotected, and it is a brutal practice that has no logical reason behind it. You can say that it helps protect people from disease, but just as many studies show the contrary. Besides, if you wanna protect yourself, wear a condom!
It's the tip of your dick, people! You're cutting off a piece of your body! Does nobody see the insanity in that but me?!
If circumcision is so barbaric, then why do so many doctors today perform them?
lol! ''Everybody's doing it, so it must be okay!"
Not even close to what I said.
I guess I should go ahead and point out that quite a bit of what I've seen you argue recently has amounted to the following syllogism:
I don't believe x is good The Bible allows/commands x So the Bible isn't true.
Oh, no. I've also pointed out how large portions of the Bible have been completely made up.
I'll let this man speak for me, since he is much more eloquent:
And of course, rather than address my actual arguments, you ignore them completely and go in a different direction. We weren;t even discussing my own reasons for no longer believing; we were talking about why circumcision is brutal mutilation.
Isn't it funny how everybody in the US cries out in protest when women's genitals are mutilated overseas, yet seem to think doing it to young boys is just fine? What a crazy world we live in.
Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057
Posted: December 03 2009 at 13:48
Epignosis wrote:
If the Christian God created the world, then the Christian God gets to determine moral absolutes.
After all, such a God is the only Being anybody will ultimately answer to.
True, but I think that would make him malevolent, depending on how he enforces moral absolutes. If a person uses reason and good intention to arrive at a logical conclusion (based on apparently God-given human logic) that is against God's absolute moral rule, then how couldn't we fault God for allowing him to become cognitively dissonant? If God doesn't have to be benevolent, then that changes everything, but no one likes to think of that. In fact, it's anthropomorphism to think God has any moral compass at all.
Joined: November 18 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4900
Posted: December 03 2009 at 13:50
Negoba wrote:
When I did these, it was because it was a cultural norm and the parents requested it.
A nerve block is used and the actual removal is accomplished through a blunt crushing method that insures control of bleeding and better healing. No baby boy ever went into shock during my experience with these procedures.
There is a small signal that circumcised males transmit HPV less which means less cervical cancer in their partners. But the signal is small. There is also no evidence that any sexual dysfunction is caused. So medically it's a wash. But in general, we don't do pointless surgeries, this being a cultural exception. Many cultures pierce baby girl's ears which is a (significantly) lesser but similar cultural body alteration done against their will that hurts temporarily.
I'm actually glad that I don't have to do them anymore.
Well, I'll certainly take your account as truth, then. Thanks for clearing that stuff up.
However, I HAVE seen footage of kids going into shock during the procedure. And yes, I CAN provide that footage (Not here, because it would be in poor taste, but I can pm you if you wish to see what I'm talking about).
Now to a possibly difficult question: have you/would you allow your children to be circumcised, and if so, how would you justify it in your mind, since you yourself just said it was a pointless procedure?
Please don't take offense, I AM asking to make a point.
Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5208
Posted: December 03 2009 at 13:50
stonebeard wrote:
AmbianceMan wrote:
It's perfectly reasonable to outline what aspects a creator should have.
What? LOL how does that even make any sense? Think about what you just said. Let's say you make a drawing. Does that drawing get to tell you what kind of person you should be? No, it has no power over you.
Perfectly reasonable in that you have to outline what kind of thing you're talking about for an argument. God is usually omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, at least. We define it because an argument would be meaningless without a definition. You could say "God is beyond definition," but that would make anything you have to say (or indeed think) about the subject of God meaningless. This is a problem, because God may indeed be outside any human thought or perception if any sort of thing like that exists, but then if it is, it's not worth talking, or thinking, or worrying about.
I disagree. Because what we're talking about (whether named God, Nature, Math, Science, or Grover) is the governing force of the Universe, it's worth talking about. And whether we're talking about the Natural Forces that govern the Universe or God, some aspect almost certainly is beyond the human capacity for understanding or definition.
You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.
Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5208
Posted: December 03 2009 at 13:53
p0mt3 wrote:
Negoba wrote:
When I did these, it was because it was a cultural norm and the parents requested it.
A nerve block is used and the actual removal is accomplished through a blunt crushing method that insures control of bleeding and better healing. No baby boy ever went into shock during my experience with these procedures.
There is a small signal that circumcised males transmit HPV less which means less cervical cancer in their partners. But the signal is small. There is also no evidence that any sexual dysfunction is caused. So medically it's a wash. But in general, we don't do pointless surgeries, this being a cultural exception. Many cultures pierce baby girl's ears which is a (significantly) lesser but similar cultural body alteration done against their will that hurts temporarily.
I'm actually glad that I don't have to do them anymore.
Well, I'll certainly take your account as truth, then. Thanks for clearing that stuff up.
Now to a possibly difficult question: have you/would you allow your children to be circumcised, and if so, how would you justify it in your mind, since you yourself just said it was a pointless procedure?
Please don't take offense, I AM asking to make a point.
I have two girls so I got to duck the question. Because my wife is firmly against. I'm neutral because intellecutally I think it's pointless but every man in my family and most in my culture are, there's still a part of me that leans that way.
So her strong feelings and my wiffle-waffling probably would have ended in no procedure if we had had sons.
You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.
Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057
Posted: December 03 2009 at 13:53
Negoba wrote:
stonebeard wrote:
AmbianceMan wrote:
It's perfectly reasonable to outline what aspects a creator should have.
What? LOL how does that even make any sense? Think about what you just said. Let's say you make a drawing. Does that drawing get to tell you what kind of person you should be? No, it has no power over you.
Perfectly reasonable in that you have to outline what kind of thing you're talking about for an argument. God is usually omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, at least. We define it because an argument would be meaningless without a definition. You could say "God is beyond definition," but that would make anything you have to say (or indeed think) about the subject of God meaningless. This is a problem, because God may indeed be outside any human thought or perception if any sort of thing like that exists, but then if it is, it's not worth talking, or thinking, or worrying about.
I disagree. Because what we're talking about (whether named God, Nature, Math, Science, or Grover) is the governing force of the Universe, it's worth talking about. And whether we're talking about the Natural Forces that govern the Universe or God, some aspect almost certainly is beyond the human capacity for understanding or definition.
If we can't talk with meaning about anything, I don't see much worth in it, aside from flexing my logic and hearing myself/other talk about things with an air of sophistication...
Joined: November 18 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4900
Posted: December 03 2009 at 13:55
Negoba wrote:
I have two girls so I got to duck the question. Because my wife is firmly against. I'm neutral because intellecutally I think it's pointless but every man in my family and most in my culture are, there's still a part of me that leans that way.
So her strong feelings and my wiffle-waffling probably would have ended in no procedure if we had had sons.
I'm glad to see you say that, Jay. You have my respect.
Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5208
Posted: December 03 2009 at 14:00
stonebeard wrote:
Negoba wrote:
stonebeard wrote:
AmbianceMan wrote:
It's perfectly reasonable to outline what aspects a creator should have.
What? LOL how does that even make any sense? Think about what you just said. Let's say you make a drawing. Does that drawing get to tell you what kind of person you should be? No, it has no power over you.
Perfectly reasonable in that you have to outline what kind of thing you're talking about for an argument. God is usually omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, at least. We define it because an argument would be meaningless without a definition. You could say "God is beyond definition," but that would make anything you have to say (or indeed think) about the subject of God meaningless. This is a problem, because God may indeed be outside any human thought or perception if any sort of thing like that exists, but then if it is, it's not worth talking, or thinking, or worrying about.
I disagree. Because what we're talking about (whether named God, Nature, Math, Science, or Grover) is the governing force of the Universe, it's worth talking about. And whether we're talking about the Natural Forces that govern the Universe or God, some aspect almost certainly is beyond the human capacity for understanding or definition.
If we can't talk with meaning about anything, I don't see much worth in it, aside from flexing my logic and hearing myself/other talk about things with an air of sophistication...
Well for me (and for scientists) there's a big difference in not being able to understand ALL of it vs being able to understand some but knowing we can't grasp the whole thing. You must realize that science and theology are searching answers to questions about the nature of the Universe.
So that begs the question "Well what part of God / Divinity can you say you do understand?"
And that is a question I wish we were all giving answers to, for ourselves, rather than trying to take down what we perceive to be other's answer to the question.
You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.
Joined: July 04 2009
Location: Guatemala
Status: Offline
Points: 6802
Posted: December 03 2009 at 14:25
stonebeard wrote:
Negoba wrote:
So that begs the question "Well what part of God / Divinity can you say you do understand?"
I certainly can't say. I could be looking at god now and never know. If I would say anything now, it couldn't be anything but conjecture.
Plus, without a definition, we have no idea what to look for or how we'll recognize it when we see it.
there's where faith takes places you see... that's why Theist take faith as their guide... because I cannot assure you nothing but my believes and my experience trhough my lifetime... but you want definition or "real" or "confirmed" definitions about God... things that should not happen because if we find a proof about God... then faith don't serve to nothing an all the deniers become into believers and there's nothing to search and understand for... all your post go in a way that comes close to anarchy... "as we are not sure of anything... I don't believe in anything..." I -and many believers- go in the exactly opposite... "as we are not sure of anything, I believe it and hope I'm true"... but I'm sure you won't get it either...
Change the program inside... Stay in silence is a crime.
Joined: May 17 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Points: 16310
Posted: December 03 2009 at 14:28
jampa17 wrote:
stonebeard wrote:
Negoba wrote:
So that begs the question "Well what part of God / Divinity can you say you do understand?"
I certainly can't say. I could be looking at god now and never know. If I would say anything now, it couldn't be anything but conjecture.
Plus, without a definition, we have no idea what to look for or how we'll recognize it when we see it.
there's where faith takes places you see... that's why Theist take faith as their guide... because I cannot assure you nothing but my believes and my experience trhough my lifetime... but you want definition or "real" or "confirmed" definitions about God... things that should not happen because if we find a proof about God... then faith don't serve to nothing an all the deniers become into believers and there's nothing to search and understand for... all your post go in a way that comes close to anarchy... "as we are not sure of anything... I don't believe in anything..." I -and many believers- go in the exactly opposite... "as we are not sure of anything, I believe it and hope I'm true"... but I'm sure you won't get it either...
I think that would pose more questions then answers.
Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057
Posted: December 03 2009 at 14:28
jampa17 wrote:
stonebeard wrote:
Negoba wrote:
So that begs the question "Well what part of God / Divinity can you say you do understand?"
I certainly can't say. I could be looking at god now and never know. If I would say anything now, it couldn't be anything but conjecture.
Plus, without a definition, we have no idea what to look for or how we'll recognize it when we see it.
there's where faith takes places you see... that's why Theist take faith as their guide... because I cannot assure you nothing but my believes and my experience trhough my lifetime... but you want definition or "real" or "confirmed" definitions about God... things that should not happen because if we find a proof about God... then faith don't serve to nothing an all the deniers become into believers and there's nothing to search and understand for... all your post go in a way that comes close to anarchy... "as we are not sure of anything... I don't believe in anything..." I -and many believers- go in the exactly opposite... "as we are not sure of anything, I believe it and hope I'm true"... but I'm sure you won't get it either...
That's really hard to understand with all the ellipses. I'm sorry.
"and there's nothing to search and understand for"
Nah, you can still uncover things about the universe. Tons of things. Never everything.
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
Posted: December 03 2009 at 14:36
jampa17 wrote:
stonebeard wrote:
Negoba wrote:
So that begs the question "Well what part of God / Divinity can you say you do understand?"
I certainly can't say. I could be looking at god now and never know. If I would say anything now, it couldn't be anything but conjecture.
Plus, without a definition, we have no idea what to look for or how we'll recognize it when we see it.
there's where faith takes places you see... that's why Theist take faith as their guide... because I cannot assure you nothing but my believes and my experience trhough my lifetime... but you want definition or "real" or "confirmed" definitions about God... things that should not happen because if we find a proof about God... then faith don't serve to nothing an all the deniers become into believers and there's nothing to search and understand for... all your post go in a way that comes close to anarchy... "as we are not sure of anything... I don't believe in anything..." I -and many believers- go in the exactly opposite... "as we are not sure of anything, I believe it and hope I'm true"... but I'm sure you won't get it either...
You believe what you're taught without questioning it, while scientists question anything they're taught. That's the key difference.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
This page was generated in 0.162 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Evolution vs. Creationism
Topic Options
Epignosis wrote:
) - anyone whose opinion can be changed by such discussions maybe never had any firm convictions in the first place, or is being exposed to them for the first time in a way that makes sense to them. I think this only looks superficially chaotic, then perhaps this is because I can see some of these points from the same (well similar) perspective as most the people saying them.
