Second, religious reasons ARE a good reason to circumcise.
Don't be getting a boob job at 16, but let me cut off a part of my newborn's sex organ. It's okay, I have religious reasons.
Upvote
0
Second, religious reasons ARE a good reason to circumcise.
I'm not God. I can't answer why He chose a particular thing to be the sign, only that He did.
Fine, as I said, I'm circumcised with no complaints.I didn't ask you why the god chose the thing, I asked you how you feel about it.
Fine, as I said, I'm circumcised with no complaints.
"One in a gazillion"...Give me a break. I suppose a baby can get an infected ear from having it pierced and it go septic too. One in a gazillion. Let's outlaw piercing ears.
A new study published last week in Thymos: Journal of Boyhood Studies estimates that more than 100 baby boys die from circumcision complications each year, including from anesthesia reaction, stroke, hemorrhage, and infection. Because infant circumcision is elective, all of these deaths are avoidable.
To put this in perspective, about 44 neonatal boys die each year from suffocation, and 8 from auto accidents. About 115 neonatal boys die annually from SIDS, nearly the same as from circumcision.
I wonder if the doctors use the "it's was one in a gazillion chance" excuse to explain to the parents why their little baby is dead from a purely elective procedure.
Give me a break. I suppose a baby can get an infected ear from having it pierced and it go septic too. One in a gazillion. Let's outlaw piercing ears.
You don't think that you should have a REALLY good idea why you're obeying something or why you do it?I'm not God. I can't answer why He chose a particular thing to be the sign, only that He did.
Frankly, I oppose piercing children's ears before they can consent to that, too.Give me a break. I suppose a baby can get an infected ear from having it pierced and it go septic too. One in a gazillion. Let's outlaw piercing ears.
Sikhs do a turban and a bracelet. Works for them. No one needs anything cut off...Once again, I must ask you if find this in any way reasonable or logical. That the religious identity of random strangers in the street can only be determined by looking down his pants (or in those days ... up his dress)?
And does it not strike you as spectacularly weird that a religion so concerned with the avoidance of all things sexual, would then use the sex organ as advertising material? Why not a tattoo on the wrist? Or a special haircut?
But do they all carry a dagger around with them? The turban and bracelet make them highly identifiable, is my point. Moreso than the state of their foreskin, I would suggest.Don't forget the dagger.
They are suposed to always carry a weapon with them. The kirpan is just the traditional and symbolic one. It is meant to represent their will to oppose evil and is not actually meant to be used as a weapon in a fight. There are even many places where bringing a kirpan is the only exception to a "no weapons allowed" rule.But do they all carry a dagger around with them? The turban and bracelet make them highly identifiable, is my point. Moreso than the state of their foreskin, I would suggest.
I know the dagger is symbolic to them, but I didn't know any more than that, so thanks for the info. As someone who always carries a weapon, I approveThey are suposed to always carry a weapon with them. The kirpan is just the traditional and symbolic one. It is meant to represent their will to oppose evil and is not actually meant to be used as a weapon in a fight. There are even many places where bringing a kirpan is the only exception to a "no weapons allowed" rule.
The "avoidance of all things sexual" is a gross perversion of the biblical faith.And does it not strike you as spectacularly weird that a religion so concerned with the avoidance of all things sexual, would then use the sex organ as advertising material?
The "avoidance of all things sexual" is a gross perversion of the biblical faith.
Hard on sex outside the covenant of heterosexual marriage - yes.Yahweh regularly killed people for having sex in the bible,, whether that be you burning your daughter alive or killing two men who had sex together.
That is part of the gross perversion I spoke of. Read the text. They always overlook the phrase "... in light of the current distress..." (1 cor 7.26) There was a persecution going on and Paul thought it better to not have a wife and family in that temporary situation. But the same mentality that ignores that also feels need to reverse the "command" and "concession" in verse 6 of that same chapter. The concession is the allowance of abstaining from sex for a given purpose. And the text is clear (in the Greek) it is to be a very limited time period (like only a week or 2).Paul the apostle taught that it was best to not have sex but that's really hard,
Hard on sex outside the covenant of heterosexual marriage - yes.
But all for and COMMANDING sex within heterosexual marriage.
That is part of the gross perversion I spoke of. Read the text. They always overlook the phrase "... in light of the current distress..." (1 cor 7.26) There was a persecution going on and Paul thought it better to not have a wife and family in that temporary situation. But the same mentality that ignores that also feels need to reverse the "command" and "concession" in verse 6 of that same chapter. The concession is the allowance of abstaining from sex for a given purpose. And the text is clear (in the Greek) it is to be a very limited time period (like only a week or 2).
But the anti-sex attitude of the early church fathers (influenced by the Greek Stoics and gnostics) twisted the interpretation of those scriptures.
I understood your interpretation very well and held it myself for years, before I realized it was entirely wrong.You obviously need to re-read 1 Cor 7 Paul repeatedly exhorts them to celibacy for the cause of serving Christ in general, not just due to a local current crisis