|
|
Post by shadrack on Oct 6, 2017 15:08:55 GMT
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. There are no qualifiers in the passage about the prohibition on mixed fabrics about who can disregard it, true. But there are other passages, referenced in the quote (Exodus 28:6–8; 39:4–5) which specifically command the priests to do the opposite. The exceptions are in different passages, but they are there. |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Oct 6, 2017 15:09:02 GMT
Sorry dude but you don’t know what you’re talking about. It is a proven fact that the foreskin is one of the most sensitive parts of the penis and has the most nerve endings. Common sense should tell you that if you cut that off, you’re going to lose sensation. The idea that your cut penis could work as efficiently as one that was designed as normal is most likely something cut guys just tell themselves to give them a confidence boost. An intact guy wouldn’t need a confidence boost anyway. Seriously, where is the logic in that anyway? If a guy wants to get part of his dick cut off, he can just go make an appointment at the doctor. If a circumcised guy wants part of his dick back, he’s fucked! Again, common sense. In any case guys who get circumcised later in life (without a medical reason) more often than no lt regret the decision, and end up noticing a loss in sensitivity. Pretending that that type of surgery would have no effect on sensation or function is cognitive dissonance! Let's pretend this is true. We don’t have to “pretend”; we know its true. And it takes nothing more than a basic understanding of how sexual biology (anatomy and physiology) works! Only someone completely ignorant of that requires use of their imagination in order to visualize what is a scientific fact. It doesn't matter since there is more than enough sensitivity that people for thousands of years have managed to enjoy sex as often as they can get it from a willing partner, or as in your case, with your hand since masturbation is so important to you, but also to the point of ejaculating all over the place. It may not matter to you (or anyone else who can’t see past their own circumcised dick). But to other people who’ve been affected by such barbarism, it does matter. You cannot use your own one-dimensional experience to speak on behalf of everyone else. If one likes sex, then sex is fantastic regardless of foreskin existence and lack of foreskin has not stopped even one jerkoff session if that's what one is wanting to do with their free sexy time. Red-herring and tangential to the actual point that was made. Again, I refer you to the actual argument (that you claim doesn’t exist but are trying to argue around anyway). “Less pleasurable” and “more difficult” does not mean “not pleasurable”, or “impossible”. I know it is difficult for you to reconcile facts with your beliefs, but at the very least you should refrain from making straw man arguments and respond to the points being made. |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Oct 6, 2017 15:22:12 GMT
Finally, you seem to being making a broad generalization that is basically Loss of foreskin = Loss of sensitivity = No pleasure Thats because you like to make straw man arguments and you don’t listen. And that is most likely because you are emotionally compromised and highly offended that anyone might suggest that oh are in fact damaged. But the reality of the situation is that I’ve made no such argument! That’s simple how you were compelled to interpret it. But it isn’t; see above!  then your equivalency skills are deficient. If it's not true It isn’t! See above... Now back to the ridiculous religious argument The reasons given for circumcision are abundantly clear in the Bible. And apparently completely irrelevant if you are a Christian! There are few if any verses that indicate sexual pleasure is a bad thing or even that sex is meant exclusively for childbearing, meaning the assumption is sex can be for sex. You mean except all the parts of the Bible that condemn homosexuality, fornication, prostitution, and adultery, right? Because from that perspective (and indeed all the Christian arguments about how sex is intended only for married, heterosexual couples for the purpose of producing children), it doesn’t seem like your statement holds any water. So if Scripture has never indicated that circumcision is meant to curb pleasure, Good thing I never said that it did! I’m aware that doctors have indicated that in the past. Nobody ever said scripture did. then how does one become so stupid as to assume God invented (Which you seem to indicate was invented by Egyptians anyway...) to curb sexual pleasure by preventing masturbation sessions? Youd have to ask someone who actually made that argument. Straw man arguments will not satisfy your curiosity in this manner. Now the masturbation part may be valid in that God forbids his followers from fornication as well as giving into sexual urges which could lead to sex out of wedlock, gay sex, &/or rampant jerkoff sessions, but all of that is in light of the fact that desire + pleasure leads to those acts even for circumcised dudes. Somewhat contradictory to the argument you made earlier in this very post, but thanks. There's another obvious reason too but I don't think OP will be able to hold up to theses, so I'll let it be.  I don’t think that you are capable of rendering a coherent, consistent, logical perspective on this issue at all (you certainly haven’t done so to this point), mich less school anyone on facts (scientific or religious). So that’s probably the more reasonable reason for you to bug out! |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Oct 6, 2017 15:29:05 GMT
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. There are no qualifiers in the passage about the prohibition on mixed fabrics about who can disregard it, true. But there are other passages, referenced in the quote (Exodus 28:6–8; 39:4–5) which specifically command the priests to do the opposite. The exceptions are in different passages, but they are there. Then it’s a “contradiction”, not an exception! In order for it to be an exception, the passage containing the commandment must say so. Otherwise you are changing the commandment! |
|
|
|
Post by shadrack on Oct 6, 2017 17:15:07 GMT
There are no qualifiers in the passage about the prohibition on mixed fabrics about who can disregard it, true. But there are other passages, referenced in the quote (Exodus 28:6–8; 39:4–5) which specifically command the priests to do the opposite. The exceptions are in different passages, but they are there. Then it’s a “contradiction”, not an exception! In order for it to be an exception, the passage containing the commandment must say so. Otherwise you are changing the commandment! OK, it's a contradiction. The rule prohibiting the mixing of fabrics was commonly understood to apply to the common people, not to priests, but because the author of that passage failed to include that exception when he committed the rule to writing, he created a contradiction. I have no problem with that. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Oct 6, 2017 18:37:02 GMT
Argh.
There is no contradiction on mixed garments.
It is not the author's duty to create footnotes to something pertaining to a different group and the expectation is that we are smart enough to know we are reading it as intended.
One might as well say there are contradictions since the priest don't sacrifice the same way as the common people, but no one does that since they know they have officially gone full retard.
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Oct 6, 2017 18:40:21 GMT
Finally, you seem to being making a broad generalization that is basically Loss of foreskin = Loss of sensitivity = No pleasure Thats because you like to make straw man arguments and you don’t listen. And that is most likely because you are emotionally compromised and highly offended that anyone might suggest that oh are in fact damaged. But the reality of the situation is that I’ve made no such argument! That’s simple how you were compelled to interpret it. But it isn’t; see above! then your equivalency skills are deficient. If it's not true It isn’t! See above... Now back to the ridiculous religious argument The reasons given for circumcision are abundantly clear in the Bible. And apparently completely irrelevant if you are a Christian! There are few if any verses that indicate sexual pleasure is a bad thing or even that sex is meant exclusively for childbearing, meaning the assumption is sex can be for sex. You mean except all the parts of the Bible that condemn homosexuality, fornication, prostitution, and adultery, right? Because from that perspective (and indeed all the Christian arguments about how sex is intended only for married, heterosexual couples for the purpose of producing children), it doesn’t seem like your statement holds any water. So if Scripture has never indicated that circumcision is meant to curb pleasure, Good thing I never said that it did! I’m aware that doctors have indicated that in the past. Nobody ever said scripture did. then how does one become so stupid as to assume God invented (Which you seem to indicate was invented by Egyptians anyway...) to curb sexual pleasure by preventing masturbation sessions? Youd have to ask someone who actually made that argument. Straw man arguments will not satisfy your curiosity in this manner. Now the masturbation part may be valid in that God forbids his followers from fornication as well as giving into sexual urges which could lead to sex out of wedlock, gay sex, &/or rampant jerkoff sessions, but all of that is in light of the fact that desire + pleasure leads to those acts even for circumcised dudes. Somewhat contradictory to the argument you made earlier in this very post, but thanks. There's another obvious reason too but I don't think OP will be able to hold up to theses, so I'll let it be. I don’t think that you are capable of rendering a coherent, consistent, logical perspective on this issue at all (you certainly haven’t done so to this point), mich less school anyone on facts (scientific or religious). So that’s probably the more reasonable reason for you to bug out! Too many mini quotes means there wasn't much to say...
I ain't parceling through all that and I can only assume it adds nothing to the debate. After all, how could it?
|
|
|
|
Post by thefleetsin on Oct 6, 2017 18:56:57 GMT
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. or the uber religious could just stop fixating on other people's sex organs. |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Oct 6, 2017 20:41:45 GMT
Argh. There is no contradiction on mixed garments. It is not the author's duty to create footnotes to something pertaining to a different group and the expectation is that we are smart enough to know we are reading it as intended. Thats ridiculous for a multitude of reasons, not least of which is the assumption that YOU are somehow smart enough to know what this mysterious Hebrew, biblical author (who nobody knows) intended his passage to be understood in English! The fact is, these authors are supposedly inspired by God. So if they are so incompetent as to have assumed that what might have been understood thousands of years ago in a remote culture would translate universally to any other culture, in a different language, thousands of years later so as not to clarify that there were exceptions to what he wrote as a “rule”, then the author was not inspired by an all knowing God, but rather just made a bunch a shit up that seemed to make sense at one time, but couldn’t possibly today! Course the other way to look at that is Christian fundamentalist nut jobs are so cognitively dissonant, that they will use any kind of mental gymnastics to reconcile the unreconcilable, because THEY are retarded! |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Oct 6, 2017 20:45:36 GMT
Thats because you like to make straw man arguments and you don’t listen. And that is most likely because you are emotionally compromised and highly offended that anyone might suggest that oh are in fact damaged. But the reality of the situation is that I’ve made no such argument! That’s simple how you were compelled to interpret it. But it isn’t; see above! It isn’t! See above... And apparently completely irrelevant if you are a Christian! You mean except all the parts of the Bible that condemn homosexuality, fornication, prostitution, and adultery, right? Because from that perspective (and indeed all the Christian arguments about how sex is intended only for married, heterosexual couples for the purpose of producing children), it doesn’t seem like your statement holds any water. Good thing I never said that it did! I’m aware that doctors have indicated that in the past. Nobody ever said scripture did. Youd have to ask someone who actually made that argument. Straw man arguments will not satisfy your curiosity in this manner. Somewhat contradictory to the argument you made earlier in this very post, but thanks. I don’t think that you are capable of rendering a coherent, consistent, logical perspective on this issue at all (you certainly haven’t done so to this point), mich less school anyone on facts (scientific or religious). So that’s probably the more reasonable reason for you to bug out! Too many mini quotes means there wasn't much to say...
I ain't parceling through all that and I can only assume it adds nothing to the debate. After all, how could it?
Avoiding the argument means YOU HAVE NO CASE! But we knew that when you came into the discussion in the first place, didn’t we! So much for your attempt to “school” someone on what you are so obviously ignorant about. Next time have some humility and simple admit that you don’t know what you’re talking about. You’ll make yourself look like slightly less of a jackass next time! |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Oct 6, 2017 21:38:12 GMT
Too many mini quotes means there wasn't much to say...
I ain't parceling through all that and I can only assume it adds nothing to the debate. After all, how could it?
Avoiding the argument means YOU HAVE NO CASE! But we knew that when you came into the discussion in the first place, didn’t we! So much for your attempt to “school” someone on what you are so obviously ignorant about. Next time have some humility and simple admit that you don’t know what you’re talking about. You’ll make yourself look like slightly less of a jackass next time! Meh.
I'll pick and choose as time allows.
However, I have no responsibility t respond to every single one of your mini posts since most it amounts to nothing more than semantics, so my case has already been made.
It just makes it more and more evident you thought up this thread without putting much thought into it.
It makes little to no sense to create a religious based thread without having any notion of what the religious goal of circumcision is or apparently even a concern for it.
In any event, the initial silly question was asked and answered.
|
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Oct 6, 2017 22:03:56 GMT
Avoiding the argument means YOU HAVE NO CASE! But we knew that when you came into the discussion in the first place, didn’t we! So much for your attempt to “school” someone on what you are so obviously ignorant about. Next time have some humility and simple admit that you don’t know what you’re talking about. You’ll make yourself look like slightly less of a jackass next time! Meh.
I'll pick and choose as time allows.
However, I have no responsibility t respond to every single one of your mini posts since most it amounts to nothing more than semantics, so my case has already been made.
It just makes it more and more evident you thought up this thread without putting much thought into it.
It makes little to no sense to create a religious based thread without having any notion of what the religious goal of circumcision is or apparently even a concern for it.
In any event, the initial silly question was asked and answered.
Whatever excuse you need to conjure to abandon the discussion in cowardice, is fine by me dude. If/when you choose to follow through I’ll be here. For the record, I’m fully aware of what the Bible says on the issue (I’ve read it many times). I’m not asking you or anyone else to tell me what the bible says. I’m trying to get you to engage in some critical thinking for a change (well, not so much you since you are probably beyond that hope, but other people). The circumcision described in the bible isn’t even the same procedure that’s done today, so it’s actually talking about two different things! But most people are ignorant of this fact, which is why I previously didn’t bring it up. Most Jews and Christians ignorantly assume that what happens to their boy in American hospitals or Synagogues today is what happened in biblical times. |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Oct 7, 2017 9:06:33 GMT
I believe God wants us to enjoy sex and is all for us having pleasure in a committed relationship. What is this to do with the ancient and barbaric practice of male circumcision which is still forced onto many male children today, just so they can go to heaven when they die? |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Oct 7, 2017 9:08:59 GMT
I hear....  .... that the foreskin collects quite a bit of smegma. God just probably wanted to get rid of that cheese smell.  I hear.... .... that the vagina collects quite a bit of yeast and slime.
God just probably wanted to get rid of that fishy smell.
Is this why females were circumcised in Muslim religions, in the name of hygiene?
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Oct 7, 2017 9:11:31 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. God isn't, because God is not a separate entity. As far as the model God intended comment k, I am a bit confused by this statement and what it really means. Is it hetero that are supposed to be model examples of life? |
|
|
|
Post by kls on Oct 7, 2017 9:12:01 GMT
I believe God wants us to enjoy sex and is all for us having pleasure in a committed relationship. What is this to do with the ancient and barbaric practice of male circumcision which is still forced onto many male children today, just so they can go to heaven when they die? Isn't the thread title Did God Invent circumcision to take sexual pleasure away? I think my response was clear and on topic regarding that. |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Oct 7, 2017 9:15:46 GMT
What is this to do with the ancient and barbaric practice of male circumcision which is still forced onto many male children today, just so they can go to heaven when they die? Isn't the thread title Did God Invent circumcision to take sexual pleasure away? I think my response was clear and on topic regarding that. God didn't invent circumcision though, man did. It is a stupidly worded topic. |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Oct 7, 2017 9:30:56 GMT
Sorry dude but you don’t know what you’re talking about. It is a proven fact that the foreskin is one of the most sensitive parts of the penis and has the most nerve endings. Common sense should tell you that if you cut that off, you’re going to lose sensation. The idea that your cut penis could work as efficiently as one that was designed as normal is most likely something cut guys just tell themselves to give them a confidence boost. An intact guy wouldn’t need a confidence boost anyway. Seriously, where is the logic in that anyway? If a guy wants to get part of his dick cut off, he can just go make an appointment at the doctor. If a circumcised guy wants part of his dick back, he’s fucked! Again, common sense. In any case guys who get circumcised later in life (without a medical reason) more often than no lt regret the decision, and end up noticing a loss in sensitivity. Pretending that that type of surgery would have no effect on sensation or function is cognitive dissonance! Let's pretend this is true.
It doesn't matter since there is more than enough sensitivity that people for thousands of years have managed to enjoy sex as often as they can get it from a willing partner, or as in your case, with your hand since masturbation is so important to you, but also to the point of ejaculating all over the place.
If one likes sex, then sex is fantastic regardless of foreskin existence and lack of foreskin has not stopped even one jerkoff session if that's what one is wanting to do with their free sexy time.
It can make the process easier if not lubed. |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Oct 7, 2017 9:34:41 GMT
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. or the uber religious could just stop fixating on other people's sex organs. 
Yeah, f<>king perverted creepy freaks!
It's ok to mutilate a baby boy's penis without his consent, and all in the name of God, or misrepresented propaganda about hygiene, but just touching someone's penis without their consent is considered sexual assault. The mind boggles at the hypocritical double standards. 
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Oct 7, 2017 13:41:47 GMT
Let's pretend this is true.
It doesn't matter since there is more than enough sensitivity that people for thousands of years have managed to enjoy sex as often as they can get it from a willing partner, or as in your case, with your hand since masturbation is so important to you, but also to the point of ejaculating all over the place.
If one likes sex, then sex is fantastic regardless of foreskin existence and lack of foreskin has not stopped even one jerkoff session if that's what one is wanting to do with their free sexy time.
It can make the process easier if not lubed. That's irrelevant in context since the only way to masturbate is circumcised for a circumcised dude (I guess there is foreskin surgery out there if someone is that damaged by the experience...) & it doesn't still prevent them from masturbating for pleasure. They'll do it dry. |
|
