San Francisco may vote on banning male circumcision

[FloatingFatMan]

IT IS NEEDED BECAUSE HIS GOD COMMANDED HIM TO DO SO, BLOODY HELL.

Yeah, but doesn't his god also command him to stone adulterers to death?

What's this? Take what you like and ignore the rest?

[ylcard]

:rofl: :woot:

Why wouldn't "god" take it off himself if "he" didn't like it? :rofl:

Ask him.

Yeah, but doesn't his god also command him to stone adulterers to death?

What's this? Take what you like and ignore the rest?

Does he ? So bring it on, I wouldn't mind reading about adulteres getting stoned to death, throw in animal abusers and mass murderes in the mix and it'll be a party.

Yeah, religion is like that, you take the good stuff and forget about the bad stuff, you don't see them talking about another Crusade or burning people at the stake and so on, it's funny that way.

But still, isn't it a good thing that they don't take EVERYTHING from the bible and apply it IRL ? Shouldn't you be happy about it ? It's not like stoning and circumcising is the same, why should both be treated the same by the law ?

[iamawesomewicked]

Yeah, but doesn't his god also command him to stone adulterers to death?

What's this? Take what you like and ignore the rest?

That's religious folk for you.

Ask him.

Does he ? So bring it on, I wouldn't mind reading about adulteres getting stoned to death, throw in animal abusers and mass murderes in the mix and it'll be a party.

Yeah, religion is like that, you take the good stuff and forget about the bad stuff, you don't see them talking about another Crusade or burning people at the stake and so on, it's funny that way.

But still, isn't it a good thing that they don't take EVERYTHING from the bible and apply it IRL ? Shouldn't you be happy about it ? It's not like stoning and circumcising is the same, why should both be treated the same by the law ?

But you can't take the bible HALF literally, and HALF not.

That makes the book fiction. And if its fiction, then it can't be true.

[0sit0]

Ask him.

You know I would but...

[Seizure1990]

So you admit that it isn't actually needed when the kid is a baby?

Thank you for proving my point.

Actually, I never admitted that. Please don't put words in my mouth.

Yeah, but doesn't his god also command him to stone adulterers to death?

What's this? Take what you like and ignore the rest?

We also have a law in the Torah that states the laws of your land are your laws as well. :)

Guess the Rabbis decided that this law takes precedence over stoning.

[ylcard]

That's religious folk for you.

But you can't take the bible HALF literally, and HALF not.

That makes the book fiction. And if its fiction, then it can't be true.

It's not the issue here, though, I would be the last person on Earth to say that the Holy Bible holds any truth, or that I believe in God and whatever else you might argue against. I'm a bloody Atheist after all.

It's not like I personally believe their God commanded them to do so, I know that THEY believe it, and you must respect their religion as much as you respect yours (or in case you're an Atheist, well, the void or whatever it is that we believe in).

But I'm curious, why should you take the Bible as 100% literal or 100%, err - "metaphorical" ? (Bah.. no idea what word to use in such context). Why can't you pick and choose each sentence as you see fit ? It wasn't "written" by God, after all, was it ? So that alone is a good enough reason to NOT take everything literally, but there are parts in it where God supposedly speaks, directly or otherwise, so its their choice how to interpret it, or rather, their Rabbis or whoever.

[iamawesomewicked]

It's not the issue here, though, I would be the last person on Earth to say that the Holy Bible holds any truth, or that I believe in God and whatever else you might argue against. I'm a bloody Atheist after all.

It's not like I personally believe their God commanded them to do so, I know that THEY believe it, and you must respect their religion as much as you respect yours (or in case you're an Atheist, well, the void or whatever it is that we believe in).

But I'm curious, why should you take the Bible as 100% literal or 100%, err - "metaphorical" ? (Bah.. no idea what word to use in such context). Why can't you pick and choose each sentence as you see fit ? It wasn't "written" by God, after all, was it ? So that alone is a good enough reason to NOT take everything literally, but there are parts in it where God supposedly speaks, directly or otherwise, so its their choice how to interpret it, or rather, their Rabbis or whoever.

But if you take some parts literal, you have to take it all literal, or else it doesn't make sense to take any part literal.

For a non-religious person, you sure do stick up for them ;)

[ylcard]

I don't believe that you must take everything literally. But hell, what do I know, I lost interest after 1 page of the Hebrew Bible.

I'm sure that there are secular examples I could use to show that no one always takes a book, document, speech and whatever 100% literal or 100% [opposite-of-literal], they too pick and choose. But.. I'm too tired and I wouldn't know where to begin to find such an example.

[Seizure1990]

But if you take some parts literal, you have to take it all literal, or else it doesn't make sense to take any part literal.

Why are you making up bull****? Where does that come from? You're just pulling stuff out of your ass now.

And he's sticking up for them because he believes that just because he doesn't believe in something himself, doesn't mean he can't defend it. That's a very noble concept, and not one that he came up with himself, but of course, I wouldn't expect you to understand that.

[iamawesomewicked]

Why are you making up bull****? Where does that come from? You're just pulling stuff out of your ass now.

And he's sticking up for them because he believes that just because he doesn't believe in something himself, doesn't mean he can't defend it. That's a very noble concept, and not one that he came up with himself, but of course, I wouldn't expect you to understand that.

What exactly am I making up?

[Solid Knight]

But if you take some parts literal, you have to take it all literal, or else it doesn't make sense to take any part literal.

No you don't. That's like saying you have to take all parts of a The Lord of the Rings literal or all metaphorical.

[iamawesomewicked]

No you don't. That's like saying you have to take all parts of a The Lord of the Rings literal or all metaphorical.

But the lord of the rings doesnt try to pass itself off as anything but fiction.

[CyberManifest]

:rofl: :woot:

Why wouldn't "god" take it off himself if "he" didn't like it? :rofl:

To test those who are devoted to him?

Yeah, but doesn't his god also command him to stone adulterers to death?

What's this? Take what you like and ignore the rest?

Let he without sin cast the first stone.

[Joshie]

But still, isn't it a good thing that they don't take EVERYTHING from the bible and apply it IRL ? Shouldn't you be happy about it ? It's not like stoning and circumcising is the same, why should both be treated the same by the law ?

What a weird perspective to have. Between stoning people who willfully committed criminal acts and dismembering newborns who've done nothing wrong nor developed any ability to consent to any behavior whatsoever, circumcision is considered the less barbaric act?

Weeeeird.

To test those who are devoted to him?

The whole 'testing' nonsense is one of the most absurd copouts of religious argument. It's always there to back up anybody in any situation that doesn't quite feel right.

If a horrible disaster happens in a blue state, Pat Robertson can say God is punishing adulterers, pro-choicers, feminists, and gays. A record sweep of distructive tornados in the red states of the American south, on the other hand? Must be a test of faith! God has a plan.

Back and forth, back and forth, punishment or test, say it's whichever one best applies to which side of an argument you agree with at the time. Never question your own beliefs. Ever.

[Seizure1990]

And who are you to decide what is and isn't absurd about religion?

I think a large portion of the people in this topic have a gross misunderstand of what faith actually means(inb4 all the sarcastic, obnoxious joke answers)

[Knife Party]

Naturally fit ? Take a look at yours and tell me if it looks natural to you.

I'm guessing that a haircut is also "mutilation" because hair is a part of your body, is it not ? You cut it, as in, you "dismember" it.

Go google mutilation and see the images, maybe you'll get the idea of what it actually is.

some facts about the foreskin: 1. its genetically fit for its purpose (protecting penis head etc)

2. its a natural part of the body - why must be removed? how is it redundant on a genetic level? And yes, having it is different from not having it, since if there was no difference, the debate wouldn't revolve around this subject.

yes mine is uncircumcised, its natural, as intended. If yours is circumcised, than that is not natural. Circumcision atleast in my opinion is mutilation, there is no logical or rational reason to remove it, unless medically threatening to your survival/well-being.

[Joshie]

And who are you to decide what is and isn't absurd about religion?

I think a large portion of the people in this topic have a gross misunderstand of what faith actually means(inb4 all the sarcastic, obnoxious joke answers)

I never said it was absurd about religion. I said it was absurd about religious argument, and any argument for that matter. It's a logical copout, because using it makes it literally impossible to ever be wrong. Anything bad that ever happens to your allies is a test, but the exact same bad events happening to an enemy are a punishment. It creates a comfortable little bubble of delusion where you never have to question your own upbringing.

You can defend it all you want, but it just makes you incapable of developing any real perspective on religious conflict. Anyone could look at the drama between the Jewish and Arab worlds in the middle east and see two groups of people that both think their faith is 100% true and righteous. Anyone on either side will see their victories as God-given and their failures as either tests of faith or part of a larger sequence of events that will ultimately lead to a God-given victory.

That is why it's a copout. Because it's illogical. It can never be conclusive, and encourages endless arguments where both sides either engage in it and believe themselves to be right, or one side recognizes the absurdity OF THE METHOD OF ARGUMENT and just gives up.

[satukoro]

some facts about the foreskin: 1. its genetically fit for its purpose (protecting penis head etc)

2. its a natural part of the body - why must be removed? how is it redundant on a genetic level? And yes, having it is different from not having it, since if there was no difference, the debate wouldn't revolve around this subject.

yes mine is uncircumcised, its natural, as intended. If yours is circumcised, than that is not natural. Circumcision atleast in my opinion is mutilation, there is no logical or rational reason to remove it, unless medically threatening to your survival/well-being.

Yours may be natural, but mine's cleaner which I'm sure you'll disclaim as also being "not natural."

[CyberManifest]

What a weird perspective to have. Between stoning people who willfully committed criminal acts and dismembering newborns who've done nothing wrong nor developed any ability to consent to any behavior whatsoever, circumcision is considered the less barbaric act?

Weeeeird.

The whole 'testing' nonsense is one of the most absurd copouts of religious argument. It's always there to back up anybody in any situation that doesn't quite feel right.

If a horrible disaster happens in a blue state, Pat Robertson can say God is punishing adulterers, pro-choicers, feminists, and gays. A record sweep of distructive tornados in the red states of the American south, on the other hand? Must be a test of faith! God has a plan.

Back and forth, back and forth, punishment or test, say it's whichever one best applies to which side of an argument you agree with at the time. Never question your own beliefs. Ever.

From my understanding God doesn't discriminate; he punishes bad behavior from anyone and he loves everyone. Don't see the blue state red state nonsense.

[iamawesomewicked]

Yours may be natural, but mine's cleaner which I'm sure you'll disclaim as also being "not natural."

How is yours cleaner exactly?

[CyberManifest]

How is yours cleaner exactly?

Less surface area to hold bacteria?

[iamawesomewicked]

Less surface area to hold bacteria?

How dirty are you that you've got bacteria growing in there?

[trieste]

Let's not also forget that circumcision is an irreversible process that removes sensitivity from the area.

Then brush up on your layman medical knowledge and read about the role of the frenulum (or frenum). That's where the sensitivity comes from.

[iamawesomewicked]

Then brush up on your layman medical knowledge and read about the role of the frenulum (or frenum). That's where the sensitivity comes from.

And wouldn't that be removed during circumcision?

[trieste]

From my understanding God doesn't discriminate; he punishes bad behavior from anyone and he loves everyone. Don't see the blue state red state nonsense.

Horrible disasters are not punishments for anyone's specific sins, unless a prophecy has been given.

They happen because Adam sinned. We each chose to live in a world without God's love and protection by forsaking God as our rightful authority, so please, blame ourselves. :)