|
|
Post by gadreel on Oct 9, 2017 20:46:25 GMT
I said it made sense. There has already been a reason for mixed fabrics propositioned, bu I also hear the separation from pagans as an likely rationale. It likely had more to do with differentiating between their own priests. Actually that seems less likely to me, but as I said there is actually a rationale for most of the rules. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Oct 9, 2017 21:37:25 GMT
It likely had more to do with differentiating between their own priests. Actually that seems less likely to me, but as I said there is actually a rationale for most of the rules. Why? There is already information regarding the priest being allowed to wear mixed fabrics and there were already sufficient markers to separate the from other tribes - circumcision, tattoos, etc... Were there other tribes out there with mixed garments and, if so, why would the priests have them? |
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Oct 9, 2017 21:47:35 GMT
Actually that seems less likely to me, but as I said there is actually a rationale for most of the rules. Why? There is already information regarding the priest being allowed to wear mixed fabrics and there were already sufficient markers to separate the from other tribes - circumcision, tattoos, etc... Were there other tribes out there with mixed garments and, if so, why would the priests have them? Gordon Fee and Douglas Stuart: These and other prohibitions were designed to forbid the Israelites to engage in fertility cult practices of the Canaanites. The Canaanites believed in sympathetic magic, the idea that symbolic actions can influence the gods and nature…. Mixing animal breeds, seeds, or materials was thought to “marry” them” so as magically to produce “offspring,” that is, agricultural bounty in the future. EDIT: It's not about seperating them from other tribes it is about avoiding pagan practices. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Oct 9, 2017 21:57:29 GMT
Why? There is already information regarding the priest being allowed to wear mixed fabrics and there were already sufficient markers to separate the from other tribes - circumcision, tattoos, etc... Were there other tribes out there with mixed garments and, if so, why would the priests have them? Gordon Fee and Douglas Stuart: These and other prohibitions were designed to forbid the Israelites to engage in fertility cult practices of the Canaanites. The Canaanites believed in sympathetic magic, the idea that symbolic actions can influence the gods and nature…. Mixing animal breeds, seeds, or materials was thought to “marry” them” so as magically to produce “offspring,” that is, agricultural bounty in the future. EDIT: It's not about seperating them from other tribes it is about avoiding pagan practices. Separation is almost always tied to paganism or false worship. The mixing of fabrics being one could be tied to that but it was not in and of itself paganism since true worship included it too. |
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Oct 9, 2017 22:04:00 GMT
Gordon Fee and Douglas Stuart: These and other prohibitions were designed to forbid the Israelites to engage in fertility cult practices of the Canaanites. The Canaanites believed in sympathetic magic, the idea that symbolic actions can influence the gods and nature…. Mixing animal breeds, seeds, or materials was thought to “marry” them” so as magically to produce “offspring,” that is, agricultural bounty in the future. EDIT: It's not about seperating them from other tribes it is about avoiding pagan practices. Separation is almost always tied to paganism or false worship. The mixing of fabrics being one could be tied to that but it was not in and of itself paganism since true worship included it too. so you assert, in any case we both agree that the rule was there for a reason. |
|
|
|
Post by kls on Oct 10, 2017 10:33:42 GMT
In America religion doesn't play a role in most circumcisions today and over the last several decades.
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Oct 10, 2017 11:17:46 GMT
Separation is almost always tied to paganism or false worship. The mixing of fabrics being one could be tied to that but it was not in and of itself paganism since true worship included it too. so you assert, in any case we both agree that the rule was there for a reason. Yes, I just think the reason is probably better explained in Scripture. I don't think it is unknown nor my reason unlikely. |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Oct 10, 2017 13:42:28 GMT
In America religion doesn't play a role in most circumcisions today and over the last several decades. I’m aware of that; pretty sure most Americans are. |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Oct 10, 2017 13:45:03 GMT
It’s obvious now that you don’t have an argument; you never really did. All you can do is blow smoke, and then when challenged you tuck your tail between your legs and run. It’s too bad you’re such a coward. It would have been more fun humiliating you the old fashioned way. |
|
|
|
Post by kls on Oct 10, 2017 13:48:53 GMT
In America religion doesn't play a role in most circumcisions today and over the last several decades. I’m aware of that; pretty sure most Americans are. I'm sure most are, but not all. I've heard more than one person speaking of it as a Christian ritual (not just Jewish or Islamic). |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Oct 10, 2017 13:53:02 GMT
I’m aware of that; pretty sure most Americans are. I'm sure most are, but not all. I've heard more than one person speaking of it as a Christian ritual (not just Jewish or Islamic). Indeed. I’ve run into quite a number of Christians in America who’ve told me that they are circumcised “cause it’s in the bible” as well. But there is a lot of ignorance in that country (as evidenced by the fact that such a practice continues to go on). A lot of Americans don’t even believe in basic science like climate change, or evolution. Hell, they elected Donald Trump as President for Christ sake! Nobody ever said they were among the most educated or reasonable people. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Oct 10, 2017 14:05:36 GMT
I’m aware of that; pretty sure most Americans are. I'm sure most are, but not all. I've heard more than one person speaking of it as a Christian ritual (not just Jewish or Islamic). I have never heard this except anecdotally on the nets and especially since it is directly contradictory to Christian Doctrine which quite clearly states no one cares anymore.
I think most people simply circumcise still because there was a cultural point in time when it was the secular norm.
I think people in this current climate forget how routine circumcision became when a baby boy was born. Insurance paid for it and doctors rarely cheered the notion of not doing it and especially since it was another fee.
|
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Oct 10, 2017 15:27:42 GMT
I'm sure most are, but not all. I've heard more than one person speaking of it as a Christian ritual (not just Jewish or Islamic). I have never heard this except anecdotally on the nets and especially since it is directly contradictory to Christian Doctrine which quite clearly states no one cares anymore. Unfortunately, it’s been such a common false argument that there have been numerous books and websites devoted specifically towards educating Christian parents of the spiritual merits (or lack thereof) of circumcision. Circumcision-ChristianityChristian ParentChristians and infant circumcision Catholics Against Circumcision A simple search on Yahoo Answers will reveal just how often and how many Christians are still confused on this issue. Might be the first thing you’ve ever said that I actually agree with. The only exception I’d take on this issue is that things haven’t really changed much in the US. Infant circumcision is still covered by healthcare in most states, and doctors will push it or not often depending on how popular it is in their state. It’s much more common for a doctor in Michigan (which has a higher rate of circumcision than nationwide) to promote it than a doctor in say California (where circumcision is much lower than national average). |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Oct 10, 2017 16:26:20 GMT
I have never heard this except anecdotally on the nets and especially since it is directly contradictory to Christian Doctrine which quite clearly states no one cares anymore. Unfortunately, it’s been such a common false argument that there have been numerous books and websites devoted specifically towards educating Christian parents of the spiritual merits (or lack thereof) of circumcision. Circumcision-ChristianityChristian ParentChristians and infant circumcision Catholics Against Circumcision A simple search on Yahoo Answers will reveal just how often and how many Christians are still confused on this issue. Might be the first thing you’ve ever said that I actually agree with. The only exception I’d take on this issue is that things haven’t really changed much in the US. Infant circumcision is still covered by healthcare in most states, and doctors will push it or not often depending on how popular it is in their state. It’s much more common for a doctor in Michigan (which has a higher rate of circumcision than nationwide) to promote it than a doctor in say California (where circumcision is much lower than national average). There's books and websites devoted to everything.
Again, this means nothing in light of what Christianity clearly states. There is confusion only when people willfully choose to ignore that which is stated and go their own way.
My point regarding the commonality of circumcision is that, due to more conversation surrounding it, there is more choice rather than an assumption circumcision is best. This is brought out by the continual and substantial decline of it's use ( The poorer states also have fewer circumcisions since, again, it's a money maker and if you have no money or insurance, you ain't getting one).
I have never heard a case where a Christian has specifically chosen circumcision for their kid on the basis of Jesus, but there's a religious everything. There's likely a Christians against circumcisions too.
|
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Oct 10, 2017 16:56:49 GMT
There's books and websites devoted to everything. Usually because there is a demand for what is being provided. In this case Information. But it ultimately means a lot given that Christianity doesn’t “clearly” state ANYTHING! Christianity is a broad collection of varied beliefs, with different doctrines, tenets, and practices worldwide, based on different interpretations of both the bible and traditions of the church. If “Christianity” was clear on anything, it’s that IT doesn’t actually say anything; but rather people’s interpretation of it does. Which is what EVERY Christian does (including you). More to the point, this is essentially you admitting that Christians have been confused on this issue. Why they end up being confused is irrelevant! As I’ve already pointed out, I’m well aware of these facts. I just don’t know why you think it’s relevant in this discussion (as nobody has suggested otherwise). Well, that’s only ONE of the reasons. The fact is, the bigger reason for its decline is that parents are simply more educated about it today than they were in the past. There is more more readily available information regarding it thanks to the internet than there was in the 70s-80s. Like the fact that it’s largely an American custom not practiced as rotine in most parts of the developed world. People can also do things like actually watch a circumcision being done beforehand, something which wasn’t an option in the past for most people. See to me THIS is the statement that doesn’t mean anything. The assumption that because YOU haven’t heard of it that it’s uncommon is another example of the kind of thing that often makes you seem really stupid. No shit Sherlock; I just posted links to them. Keep up!  |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Oct 11, 2017 12:50:02 GMT
In America religion doesn't play a role in most circumcisions today and over the last several decades. It is religion that instigated the practice, but in the US, it is performed for profit, under false and misleading pretenses. Ignorant mothers and fathers who have been circumcised— without their own consent—buy into it. |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Oct 11, 2017 15:25:09 GMT
A couple of observations here: Christianity doesn’t “clearly” state ANYTHING! Christianity is a broad collection of varied beliefs, with different doctrines, tenets, and practices worldwide, based on different interpretations of both the bible and traditions of the church. If “Christianity” was clear on anything, it’s that IT doesn’t actually say anything; but rather people’s interpretation of it does. Christians themselves it seems have a different view to the good Captain, viz: Teaching of course is just another way of saying things. Is one to understand that Christianity teaches nothing? This atheist would find it hard to argue this. Arguably rather, all Christianity has is its teachings, though I would certainly agree interpretations of such can be thick on the ground.
But, er, if you have just claimed, firmly, that Christianity really doesn't state anything, then how can that which is not allegedly stated be, 'ignored?' Have you thought this through?
|
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Oct 11, 2017 20:10:32 GMT
Christians themselves it seems have a different view to the good Captain, And EACH OTHER, which validates my point!  ”Christianity” is such a broad and unspecific term, that it means different things to different people, to the point where it (collectively) “teaches” things that contradict itself. So to declare what Christianity teaches is almost meaningless since Christians can’t even agree to that. No I didn’t. You have just firmly created a straw man argument. Go back and read what I actually wrote (quote it if you need to), without making your own edits to add or remove emphasis on selected words. You’ll find that I said something very different than what you just claimed. I have, but the degree to which you are capable of comprehending seems questionable at this point in time since you decided to change the meaning of what I wrote.. |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Oct 12, 2017 12:01:55 GMT
Christians themselves it seems have a different view to the good Captain, And EACH OTHER, which validates my point! While I appreciate what you are saying, and would want to say it, I doubt whether one could find any Christian, of any hue, who would claim their faith teaches nothing, 'clearly', or not. Again I can see what you are trying to say (that any teaching, when interpreted differently and which appears to contradict itself as espoused by various competing camps) might be invalidated. However, apparently contradictory interpretations do not mean that something is necessarily invalid, merely confused or distorted by the human arrogance, mistakes, and pride of the faithful. There is also no reason either why some person insisting what Christianity teaches must be wrong, just because his or her view is gainsaid, or repudiated by other followers. Of course, there is no reason why all could be wrong too, and in fact one might reasonably think that the most important truth of reality would be easier to agree on, (and evidence, come to that) than it often proves.
So was it not you at all who said: "Christianity doesn’t “clearly” state ANYTHING.... If “Christianity” was clear on anything, it’s that IT doesn’t actually say anything [my emphasis]" then?
See above. Also, a mild ad hominem , is still a personal attack and not an answer. But you have been told this before. |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Oct 12, 2017 13:51:30 GMT
And EACH OTHER, which validates my point! While I appreciate what you are saying, and would want to say it, I doubt whether one could find any Christian, of any hue, who would claim their faith teaches nothing, 'clearly', or not. I doubt you’ll find any Klansman who would claim that their philosophy teaches anything immoral. But you can’t depends on the subjects of the practice to render an honest appraisal of it. When I was a Christian (which was very recently), I would have agreed with you that Christianity was “clear”. Now that I no longer have the blinders on, I can see what’s clear and what isn’t (as any objective person should be able to do). 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. See, now you quoted correctly! Don’t blame me because you used a straw man argument. Don’t attribute statements to me that I didn’t make, or try to change the meaning of what I say next time. |
|
