|
|
Post by captainbryce on Oct 5, 2017 23:59:20 GMT
This question is mostly for theists (particularly Jews and some Christians) who believe that God commanded you to cut your foreskin off. Why did God "create you" with foreskin, but then demand that you cut it off?
Isn't it possible that people feared that sexual pleasure would encourage the "sin" of masturbation, and appropriated that ancient Egyptian practice of circumcision (disguised as a command from God) in order to impede your sinful masturbatory habits?
Discuss!
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Oct 6, 2017 0:15:16 GMT
This question is mostly for theists (particularly Jews and some Christians) who believe that God commanded you to cut your foreskin off. Why did God "create you" with foreskin, but then demand that you cut it off? Isn't it possible that people feared that sexual pleasure would encourage the "sin" of masturbation, and appropriated that ancient Egyptian practice of circumcision (disguised as a command from God) in order to impede your sinful masturbatory habits? Discuss! It is more likely that a desert tribe realised that circumcision was the most healthy option in their environment, and codified this into the law along with mixed fabrics and the forced dowry/marriage of a rapist. These are ancient rules for an ancient people, although they made sense at the time the are not necessarily practical today. |
|
|
|
Post by thefleetsin on Oct 6, 2017 0:21:47 GMT
perversion is everywhere.
|
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Oct 6, 2017 2:22:39 GMT
This question is mostly for theists (particularly Jews and some Christians) who believe that God commanded you to cut your foreskin off. Why did God "create you" with foreskin, but then demand that you cut it off? Isn't it possible that people feared that sexual pleasure would encourage the "sin" of masturbation, and appropriated that ancient Egyptian practice of circumcision (disguised as a command from God) in order to impede your sinful masturbatory habits? Discuss! It is more likely that a desert tribe realised that circumcision was the most healthy option in their environment, and codified this into the law along with mixed fabrics and the forced dowry/marriage of a rapist. These are ancient rules for an ancient people, although they made sense at the time the are not necessarily practical today. How exactly is not wearing "mixed fabrics" more beneficial than not? |
|
|
|
Post by kls on Oct 6, 2017 2:29:31 GMT
I believe God wants us to enjoy sex and is all for us having pleasure in a committed relationship.
|
|
|
|
Post by shadrack on Oct 6, 2017 2:38:30 GMT
It is more likely that a desert tribe realised that circumcision was the most healthy option in their environment, and codified this into the law along with mixed fabrics and the forced dowry/marriage of a rapist. These are ancient rules for an ancient people, although they made sense at the time the are not necessarily practical today. How exactly is not wearing "mixed fabrics" more beneficial than not? He didn't say the rules were beneficial, he said they made sense at the time. There are a couple theories as to why such a prohibition is in the bible. Here is one (quoted below); I've seen others that are similar. |
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Oct 6, 2017 2:45:26 GMT
I hear....  .... that the foreskin collects quite a bit of smegma. God just probably wanted to get rid of that cheese smell.  |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Oct 6, 2017 3:49:55 GMT
Theist lol. Anyway, for this to be accurate is to assume guys circumcised guys aren't experiencing pleasure. I can't speak for all of us, but I have sex almost exclusively for pleasure. But thanks for thinking about my long lost foreskin!  |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Oct 6, 2017 3:58:19 GMT
This question is mostly for theists (particularly Jews and some Christians) who believe that God commanded you to cut your foreskin off. Why did God "create you" with foreskin, but then demand that you cut it off? Isn't it possible that people feared that sexual pleasure would encourage the "sin" of masturbation, and appropriated that ancient Egyptian practice of circumcision (disguised as a command from God) in order to impede your sinful masturbatory habits? Discuss! It is more likely that a desert tribe realised that circumcision was the most healthy option in their environment, and codified this into the law along with mixed fabrics and the forced dowry/marriage of a rapist. These are ancient rules for an ancient people, although they made sense at the time the are not necessarily practical today. The primary reason, even if one were to ignore the notion of God existing, is listed in Scripture and there's no reason to view it as too different. The Israelites were circumcised specifically to separate themselves from the other nations/tribes of the time. Sexual pleasure is not affected by male circumcision (I think that's something uncut dudes say to themselves to as a confidence booster), so there is no reason to put a reason not based on fact as the reason. |
|
|
|
Post by scienceisgod on Oct 6, 2017 5:55:36 GMT
This question is mostly for theists (particularly Jews and some Christians) who believe that God commanded you to cut your foreskin off. Why did God "create you" with foreskin, but then demand that you cut it off? Isn't it possible that people feared that sexual pleasure would encourage the "sin" of masturbation, and appropriated that ancient Egyptian practice of circumcision (disguised as a command from God) in order to impede your sinful masturbatory habits? Discuss! It is more likely that a desert tribe realised that circumcision was the most healthy option in their environment, and codified this into the law along with mixed fabrics and the forced dowry/marriage of a rapist. These are ancient rules for an ancient people, although they made sense at the time the are not necessarily practical today. Wrong. Nobody ever forced women to keep their labia in order to make them less “healthy”. Circumcision advocates today claim that the foreskin is no longer needed because we wear clothes. |
|
|
|
Post by scienceisgod on Oct 6, 2017 5:56:55 GMT
It is more likely that a desert tribe realised that circumcision was the most healthy option in their environment, and codified this into the law along with mixed fabrics and the forced dowry/marriage of a rapist. These are ancient rules for an ancient people, although they made sense at the time the are not necessarily practical today. The primary reason, even if one were to ignore the notion of God existing, is listed in Scripture and there's no reason to view it as too different. The Israelites were circumcised specifically to separate themselves from the other nations/tribes of the time. Sexual pleasure is not affected by male circumcision (I think that's something uncut dudes say to themselves to as a confidence booster), so there is no reason to put a reason not based on fact as the reason. Uncut dudes can still make the choice to cut. Cut dudes can’t. And you’re saying uncut dudes are the ones with the bias? |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Oct 6, 2017 10:50:17 GMT
The primary reason, even if one were to ignore the notion of God existing, is listed in Scripture and there's no reason to view it as too different. The Israelites were circumcised specifically to separate themselves from the other nations/tribes of the time. Sexual pleasure is not affected by male circumcision (I think that's something uncut dudes say to themselves to as a confidence booster), so there is no reason to put a reason not based on fact as the reason. Uncut dudes can still make the choice to cut. Cut dudes can’t. And you’re saying uncut dudes are the ones with the bias? Nope. They could certainly have a bias, but that isn't the point since I don;t hear from uncut dudes often enough to know if there's a universal bias. I'm saying an uncut dude is an idiot if they think they can gauge the sexual pleasure of a circumcised dude. It's not even something that should be a concern for whoever it is, like Bryce, who thinks about it. Tons of circumcised dudes are having plenty of gratifying sex, or as the OP defines it, masturbating freely. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Oct 6, 2017 10:52:25 GMT
I'm circumcised, but if I received any more pleasure from sex than I already do, I'd never do anything but have sex and masturbate all day long.
|
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Oct 6, 2017 12:14:56 GMT
I believe God wants us to enjoy sex and is all for us having pleasure in a committed relationship. What if it’s a “committed relationship” that’s not bound by a legal “marriage”, or a homosexual, committed relationship? Do you believe God is okay with that too? |
|
|
|
Post by kls on Oct 6, 2017 12:23:26 GMT
I believe God wants us to enjoy sex and is all for us having pleasure in a committed relationship. What if it’s a “committed relationship” that’s not bound by a legal “marriage”, or a homosexual, committed relationship? Do you believe God is okay with that too? I doubt God is overly concerned with the legal aspects or paperwork involved. As for a committed and faithful homosexual relationship I'm not saying it's the model God intended but I'd imagine He's much more okay with it than casual hetero flings or hetero infidelity. |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Oct 6, 2017 12:23:33 GMT
How exactly is not wearing "mixed fabrics" more beneficial than not? He didn't say the rules were beneficial, he said they made sense at the time. There are a couple theories as to why such a prohibition is in the bible. Here is one (quoted below); I've seen others that are similar. Unfortunately, while this bit of apologetics can work with the anointing oils argument, it fails entirely when it comes to general prohibitions on the entire population of Israel (which is what Leviticus 19 does). There are no qualifiers in the passage at all concerning who can disregard the command, or under what circumstances it does not apply. It’s a general command to ALL the people of Israel, which logically would include high priests. (Leviticus 19:1, 19) The Lord said to Moses, “Speak to the entire assembly of Israel and say to them: ‘Be holy because I, the Lord your God, am holy. “‘Keep my decrees. “‘Do not mate different kinds of animals. “‘Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. “‘Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material. |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Oct 6, 2017 12:27:52 GMT
What if it’s a “committed relationship” that’s not bound by a legal “marriage”, or a homosexual, committed relationship? Do you believe God is okay with that too? I doubt God is overly concerned with the legal aspects or paperwork involved. As for a committed and faithful homosexual relationship I'm not saying it's the model God intended but I'd imagine He's much more okay with it than casual hetero flings or hetero infidelity. You’re speaking from the standpoint of tolerance and acceptance, and I appreciate that. But the problem I see here is you’re using “logic” to rationalize your religious belief, one that is presumably based on biblical scripture (correct me if I’m wrong). But the Bible uses no such logic! It doesn’t say whether God would be okay with that at all. In fact, many passages strongly suggest the opposite. Furthermore, it gives no reason why God is not okay with gay relationships, or sexual relationships outside of marriage. It simply says they are “sins” (not directly, but strongly implied). So how do you justify such a belief logically when there is no biblical basis for your interpretation? |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Oct 6, 2017 12:31:48 GMT
I hear.... .... that the foreskin collects quite a bit of smegma. God just probably wanted to get rid of that cheese smell. 1) I heard that God created man perfectly (in his own image), foreskin and all. Why create such an obvious flaw only to declare it a mistake later on? 2) I hear that the vagina collects even quite a bit more smegma than any penis (cut or uncut)! With such an even greater flaw, why does God have no commandment for solving that riddle? 3) I hear that they make this stuff called soap now; it’s rumored to have the effect of cleansing the body when combined with warm water (although we should certainly confirm such rumors before jumping to conclusions).  |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Oct 6, 2017 12:35:07 GMT
Theist lol. Anyway, for this to be accurate is to assume guys circumcised guys aren't experiencing pleasure. I can't speak for all of us, but I have sex almost exclusively for pleasure. But thanks for thinking about my long lost foreskin! Well there is no doubt that generally speaking it has the effect of reducing sensitivity. And it is well known that this was one of the main reasons it was popularized in mainstream America in the late 1800s (when doctors sold it on the merits of preventing masturbation). Regardless, I’m speaking more towards the motivation of those who invented this seemingly barbaric ritual. But thanks for letting everyone know you are circumcised! |
|
|
|
Post by kls on Oct 6, 2017 12:38:33 GMT
I doubt God is overly concerned with the legal aspects or paperwork involved. As for a committed and faithful homosexual relationship I'm not saying it's the model God intended but I'd imagine He's much more okay with it than casual hetero flings or hetero infidelity. You’re speaking from the standpoint of tolerance and acceptance, and I appreciate that. But the problem I see here is you’re using “logic” to rationalize your religious belief, one that is presumably based on biblical scripture (correct me if I’m wrong). But the Bible uses no such logic! It doesn’t say whether God would be okay with that at all. In fact, many passages strongly suggest the opposite. Furthermore, it gives no reason why God is not okay with gay relationships, or sexual relationships outside of marriage. It simply says they are “sins” (not directly, but strongly implied). So how do you justify such a belief logically when there is no biblical basis for your interpretation? Just seems to me if God is ultra against gay relationships there would be more passages admonishing the behavior than there are and we'd read of Jesus Himself speaking out against it. As it is there is significantly more admonishing hetero sexual behavior. |
|
