Looks like circumcision could be banned.

[Bloomdido 10]

Why would an omniscient omnipotent deity require a covenant or agreement with a mere mortal ( a mere mortal's parents in this case) ?

 

What's the point of creating mankind, choosing some of them , and then giving the chosen the opportunity of disproving the omniscience and omnipotence of the deity by choosing to opt out of being chosen and opt in to remaining unmutilated.

 

The grand scheme appears flawed.

 

But it doesnt matter because there is a (disputed) medical benefit to the procedure and I understand they use knives these days rather than sharp stones.

 

While we are on the subject, to paraphrase the great Neil De Grasse Tyson, why did God put the fun factory right next to the sewerage works?

 

Link:

[Jag82 10]

But it doesnt matter because there is a (disputed) medical benefit to the procedure and I understand they use knives these days rather than sharp stones.

 

While we are on the subject, to paraphrase the great Neil De Grasse Tyson, why did God put the fun factory right next to the sewerage works?

 

Link:

 

Being the product of human imagination God has human failings one of which is poor urban planning

[RootsBooster 24]

Getting back to the only (weak, to put it over-fairly) argument FOR infant circumcision in Judaism,

 

the parents making the decision to have the skin cut off does not = a covenant (agreement/promise) by the infant.

 

If it is the PARENTS making the agreement with God to cut off part of their son's body, to please the God/show their loyalty to him, this is a form of RELIGIOUS HUMAN SACRIFICE, no matter how you look at it.

 

There is no covenant between the child and the god.

 

EDIT: Just to clarify for those who may be confused, this is NOT an attack on Judaism, I have no problem with people consenting and sacrificing their OWN body parts in the name of religion. I'm just speaking out against those who do it to children who do not get a say in the matter.

Edited June 20, 2012 by RootsBooster

[quisquose 10]

Is circumcision irreversible physical harm.

 

Yes

 

In the 70s when I was born it was routinely done to the majority of male children and has never caused them any physical harm?

 

Never?

 

What about total loss of penis or death?

 

Arguably it has actually done them some serious potential physical good (back to the WHO report)

 

Arguably indeed.

 

Well they do say that circumcision is the world's only "cure" still looking for a disease.

 

The WHO report is based on African studies that are "unethical, have flawed methodology and manipulated data".

 

But hey, let's say there is a minuscule reduction in infection risk. I've never slept with anybody but my wife (being one of those evil atheists), what use would an enforced circumcision be to myself, or anybody like me?

 

I suppose if I had to walk through a desert for forty years, it would help make it easier to keep it clean to have a circumcised penis. I'm not circumcised though, and every dreary morning I have to spend ten seconds extra in the shower just because i have to drag all that foreskin back. It's such a chore!

[JFKvsNixon 11]

If it is the PARENTS making the agreement with God to cut off part of their son's body, to please the God/show their loyalty to him, this is a form of RELIGIOUS HUMAN SACRIFICE, no matter how you look at it.

 

A la the Binding of Isaac?

[evildrneil 14]

Yes, unless you have a lot of money and suitable donor skin. And a GOOD surgeon.

 

Thank-you for clipping my sentence in the middle, changing it entirely and then answering that. Another fine "I'm losing the argument so I'll make up my own then" tactic...

 

What does this have to do with the topic of religious/ritual circumcision?

 

You can hardly say that X shouldn't be done on the grounds that it causes harm then exclude it from the argument when what you claim causes harm actually appears to be quite beneficial...

[RootsBooster 24]

A la the Binding of Isaac?

 

No, not that extreme. I said a FORM of sacrifice. It's nothing to do with the video game either.

[JFKvsNixon 11]

Thank-you for clipping my sentence in the middle, changing it entirely and then answering that. Another fine "I'm losing the argument so I'll make up my own then" tactic...

 

 

 

You can hardly say that X shouldn't be done on the grounds that it causes harm then exclude it from the argument when what you claim causes harm actually appears to be quite beneficial...

 

It's only claimed to be beneficial.

[Bloomdido 10]

No, not that extreme. I said a FORM of sacrifice. It's nothing to do with the video game either.

 

I had forgotten just how much Yaweh liked a nice kebab;

 

"and will make an offering by fire to Yahweh, a burnt offering, or a sacrifice, to accomplish a vow, or as a freewill offering, or in your set feasts, to make a pleasant aroma to Yahweh, of the herd, or of the flock"

 

There was a lot of sacrifice in the OT and then Jesus came along like a lamb to the slaughter.

[evildrneil 14]

It's only claimed to be beneficial.

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2231533/?tool=pmcentrez

[RootsBooster 24]

Thank-you for clipping my sentence in the middle, changing it entirely and then answering that. Another fine "I'm losing the argument so I'll make up my own then" tactic...

Oh, sorry, how about this then...

Is circumcision irreversible physical harm. In the 70s when I was born it was routinely done to the majority of male children and has never caused them any physical harm? Arguably it has actually done them some serious potential physical good (back to the WHO report)

 

Yes, unless you have a lot of money and suitable donor skin. And a GOOD surgeon.

 

yes, from here:

"harm

Pronunciation: /hɑːm/

noun

[mass noun]

physical injury, especially that which is deliberately inflicted"

 

 

Other than the loss of a body part, I don't know, has there ever been a study into other harm caused by it?

 

What does this have to do with the topic of religious/ritual circumcision?

Is that better? I'm still happy with it.

 

You can hardly say that X shouldn't be done on the grounds that it causes harm then exclude it from the argument when what you claim causes harm actually appears to be quite beneficial...

I'm saying it shouldn't be done because it violates basic human rights. I'm saying it's harm because it meets the criteria for the definition of harm.

Why are you so intent on dancing around all the main questions? It's troll-like.

 

EDIT: If you want to start a thread about the possible health benefits of circumcision, feel free. This thread is about the forced circumcision in the name of religion, with absolutely NO health benefits mentioned in the "religious law" that demands it.

Edited June 20, 2012 by RootsBooster

[evildrneil 14]

I'm saying it shouldn't be done because it violates basic human rights. I'm saying it's harm because it meets the criteria for the definition of harm.

 

Your entire "rationale" is that circumcision is bad because it causes harm. Many doctor and the WHO agree that it is beneficial - i.e. not only does it not fall into the harm category it's falls into the good for you category. This completely invalidates your argument.

 

Why are you so intent on dancing around all the main questions? It's troll-like.

 

Ermmmmm I'm not the one basing my argument around something beneficial causing harm then demanding that the evidence and argument against the "causing harm" claim be omitted. If that's not dancing around the main questions I don't know what is!