Did God invent circumcision to take sexual pleasure away?

Did God invent circumcision to take sexual pleasure away? Oct 12, 2017 15:44:01 GMT

Quote

Post by captainbryce on Oct 12, 2017 15:44:01 GMT

Oct 12, 2017 15:13:40 GMT FilmFlaneur said:

This does not effect my point that no Christian is likely to say that their religion 'teaches nothing'.

Your point is irrelevant as this fact was never in dispute. I was addressing my point, which you seem to be ignoring or challenging the validity of.

Incidentally as far as subjects of a practice not rendering an honest opinion of their belief system goes, I would argue the opposite: that it is best to ask those who profess something first as to what they mean, at least before substituting one's own preferred interpretation, as it is reasonable to presume that they would likely know best. In the case of the Klansman, one can see, yes, that they unlikely to see their practices and beliefs as sometimes reprehensible. But that blindness it is not the same as he or her being able to articulate what their creed teaches, only perhaps being wrong, or deluded about KKK's (moral) worth. And if one believes (as I do) that morality is ultimately subjective, anyway...

I see no difference to be honest. Mostly semantics!

Whether an interpretation is wrong or right is irrelevant. The fact that different interpretations exist proves my point of how it is “unclear”. I no longer quibble over what is correct and what isn’t because that is pointless.

In which case if one accepts this view then most significant things we experience in life - even some scientific questions - being unclear, or inviting different opinions, are 'not worth quibbling ove'r.

That is a non sequitur. Science is not comparable to religion because science is the process by which one gains knowledge. Actual, tangible knowledge in the form of facts. Religion is about faith and belief, not knowledge or facts. So you can’t judge them by the same standard. Scientists do not “quibble” over models or theories; the simply try to prove them or disprove them. Peer review determines whether or not a model has scientific merit. There is nothing to “quibble” over because there are no “interpretations” to the scientific method. At the end of the day, and idea is either scientific or it isn’t. When it comes to unscientific opinions, then whether or not it’s worth quibbling over had to do with how the person quibbling feels about what they are discussing, or rather how important it is to them.

This board would be very quiet indeed. However it may observed the quibbling is very often creates the interest, the sense and, sometimes, the way forward.

And you are at liberty to do so. I choose not to do that with religion because it’s pointless. I ask questions and point out facts. Beliefs and opinions which are debatable I don’t see worth arguing. But that’s me!

Does it really say anything or not, clear or otherwise? One notes also that the converse (i.e that 'if Christianity was unclear on anything it would be that it says something) doesn't really help you much, either.

Assuming you are genuinely confused as to what I’m saying at this point would be giving you the benefit of the doubt. I suspect that you are just arguing to be arguing at this point, so I’m not going to spend any more energy addressing this point. With respect to my overall point (which I think I’ve made) any religion (in this case Christianity) that has so many wildly different interpretations, based on so many different understandings of the bible cannot be reasonably said to be “clear” by any objective means. I don’t know how to explain it any “clearer” than this. You’re free to disagree or agree.