|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Oct 7, 2017 13:45:24 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. This is kinda ironic since the thread was started by a non-religious dude talking other people's sex organs. Plus you seem to write poetry about it all the time. |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Oct 7, 2017 13:56:12 GMT
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. It's not irrelevant in the context of the point I was making. Having a foreskin, can and does make masturbation easier, regardless of the fact of the pleasure of what masturbation can bring, uncut or cut. How dare arrogant and ignorant doctors, and religious nutters mutilate a males penis for the sake of profit and\or God. |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Oct 7, 2017 15:17:51 GMT
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. Pretty sure your argument is self defeating at this point. It is precisely because the only way for a circumcised guy to masturbate is “circumcised” that it shouldn’t be done to babies. People shouldn’t be forced to have to adopt alternate means of accomplishing something natural, or compensate for the loss of sensation or function by using lube. People shouldn’t be forced to having more surgery to reverse the damage caused by the first surgery (that they never agreed to in the first place). That’s why your argument is self defeating. Again, the issue isn’t that it “prevents” them from masturbating, but rather that it makes it more difficult and less pleasurable. That alone is a reason to oppose it being forced on to someone else. And there is really no argument to get around that basic reasoning. |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Oct 7, 2017 15:22:16 GMT
or the uber religious could just stop fixating on other people's sex organs. This is kinda ironic since the thread was started by a non-religious dude talking other people's sex organs. Plus you seem to write poetry about it all the time. That’s not what “irony” means fucktard! And as a matter of record, the thread wasn’t about other people’s sex organs, but rather other people’s (religious people mostly) ultra stupid logic concerning what God actually wants, and how people like you justify stupidity in the name of God. You then diverted the conversation about my sex organs, only to end up defending the status of your own sex organs (which is what invariably happens in this topic). But you did that my friend! So if there is any hypocrisy here, its in your criticism. |
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Oct 7, 2017 15:36:08 GMT
Gack. Are you people done beating a dead... horse... yet?
Who started this thread? An atheist who wants to know if god invented... well, you know the rest.
Can someone else start another thread, please?
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Oct 7, 2017 19:01:23 GMT
This is kinda ironic since the thread was started by a non-religious dude talking other people's sex organs. Plus you seem to write poetry about it all the time. That’s not what “irony” means fucktard! And as a matter of record, the thread wasn’t about other people’s sex organs, but rather other people’s (religious people mostly) ultra stupid logic concerning what God actually wants, and how people like you justify stupidity in the name of God. You then diverted the conversation about my sex organs, only to end up defending the status of your own sex organs (which is what invariably happens in this topic). But you did that my friend! So if there is any hypocrisy here, its in your criticism. I'm not justifying anything. I dare you to find anything that even remotely suggests I'm pro-circumcision just because I continuously and mercilessly drop knowledge on you like a foreskin dropping to the ground . What I was doing was giving you an answer and as usual for people like you, you actually are only asking stuff rhetorically. That's fine since I don't care what you think about God and my answers are for people that may get confused by your idiocy. And that is the definition of irony btw. From dictionary.com If you need help with other definitions, just let me know!  |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Oct 8, 2017 9:46:12 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Oct 8, 2017 13:28:54 GMT
That’s not what “irony” means fucktard! And as a matter of record, the thread wasn’t about other people’s sex organs, but rather other people’s (religious people mostly) ultra stupid logic concerning what God actually wants, and how people like you justify stupidity in the name of God. You then diverted the conversation about my sex organs, only to end up defending the status of your own sex organs (which is what invariably happens in this topic). But you did that my friend! So if there is any hypocrisy here, its in your criticism. I'm not justifying anything. I dare you to find anything that even remotely suggests I'm pro-circumcision just because I continuously and mercilessly drop knowledge on you like a foreskin dropping to the ground . You have no "knowledge" to drop in this area. The only thing you've dropped so far are opinions (idiotic ones at that). In any case, I'm not interested in proving what you are pro or against because that is beyond the scope of this thread. You can stroke your own ego here; you don't need my help. At the end of the day, you are being ultra defensive about a topic that is obviously of personal concern to you, and then projecting your insecurities onto others on this board. What I was doing was giving you an answer and as usual for people like you, you actually are only asking stuff rhetorically. Exactly. Maybe next time you'll get a clue sooner in the thread, before you waste your own time giving the board nonsensical answers! That's fine since I don't care what you think about God and my answers are for people that may get confused by your idiocy. No, I think your answers are more to satisfy your own ego in the hopes that others here might agree with you. It seems clear that the majority doesn't, so you may have come to the wrong place. And that is the definition of irony btw. From dictionary.com the expression of one's meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite, typically for humorous or emphatic effect. If you need help with other definitions, just let me know! Yes, I'm aware of the definition dude. Unfortunately, no where in the thread that you replied to was this actually done Alanis!  |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Oct 8, 2017 13:32:02 GMT
Gack. Are you people done beating a dead... horse... yet? Who started this thread? An atheist who wants to know if god invented... well, you know the rest. Can someone else start another thread, please? People who read through threads only to get to the end, offer no opinion on said topic, and then complain about the existence of the thread. You know what we call those? Attention seekers! Your obvious options are to: A) start a new thread B) leave this thread And the answer to you question is YES, new threads have been started since you last posted here asking for a new thread to be started. Have you replied to them yet? |
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Oct 8, 2017 14:27:49 GMT
captain Bryce -
To answer your original post question, since I believe there is no god, your question is moot. Since you believe there is no god, why did you ask the question?
Does it really require 4 pages of posts to discuss a moot point? Who really is the attention seeker?
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Oct 8, 2017 16:07:41 GMT
captainbryceFleet's post specifically discussed this and you are talked about chopped dude penis.  If the sexual organ fits, wear it. I don't normally like to brag but, let's face it, I'm smarter than you in both religion...And circumcision and that's truly amazing since I've never seen a circumcision nor do i remember mine. That is how lost you are on the topic - A dude that's clueless about it knows more. This is never more evident then when you try to pretend to understand a subject simply because you started a thread about it. Maybe just start it as saying it's rhetorical and you don't care about correct answers to the question. That way, you are not beholden to respond to the correct answer whenever I post it. That's a typical theophobiac respnse- Get offended by answering a question they have no real ability to refute. That gives them the excuse to leave things that are inarguable to concentrate on both insulting the poster as well as move on to a knew thread that discusses the same topics. Why don't you just make a circumcision is bad thread and continually update it? Since I'm nice, I can make it for you as an impartial cut dude. You can;t because there is nothing new under the sun regarding your fake outrage abut it. You just want the noise and yet I'm egotistical? OK.
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Oct 8, 2017 17:24:05 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? 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. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Oct 9, 2017 2:19:25 GMT
How exactly is not wearing "mixed fabrics" more beneficial than not? 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. |
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Oct 9, 2017 2:23:29 GMT
No, you're thinking of marriage
|
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Oct 9, 2017 14:12:43 GMT
tpfkar Gack. Are you people done beating a dead... horse... yet? Who started this thread? An atheist who wants to know if god invented... well, you know the rest. Can someone else start another thread, please? So above it all, yet still managed to get in a wank joke.
No Controles |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Oct 9, 2017 16:26:15 GMT
captain Bryce - To answer your original post question, since I believe there is no god, your question is moot. Since you believe there is no god, why did you ask the question? I kind of already answered this, but in case you missed it or I wasn’t clear I’d be happy to answer it again. The question is rhetorical, and the purpose is to allow those who believe in this god to exercise some critical thinking (challenging their own belief system with logic). You see, most people who use the “it’s in the bible” defense don’t even know WHY it’s in the bible in the first place, much less whether it is reasonable to apply such logic today. Most people also don’t know that for this particular command (circumcision), the bible is talking about something very different than what most people know it as today. The answer to the first question is no. Nothing is “required” here, but that would also include your presence on the thread. The fact that you are in fact here (unnecessarily) and questioning a discussion that YOU find moot seems to suggest that YOU are in fact the attention seeker. If it’s so “moot”, then why are you here? |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Oct 9, 2017 16:38:07 GMT
captainbryceThe funny thing is that people have answered your rhetorical question appropriately and that's the reason the question is moot - It didn't accomplish your goal of not having a correct answer.
|
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Oct 9, 2017 16:45:29 GMT
captainbryce Fleet's post specifically discussed this and you are talked about chopped dude penis. If the sexual organ fits, wear it. I don’t see any of Fleet’s posts. If you are relying on him to make your argument for you, then that’s going to amount to a communication fail since I have him on ignore. Your logic here is so self defeating (claims to know more about something he admits he’s never seen) that I don’t believe I even need to respond. The fact that you even think this is sound logic is enough proof of your stupidity in my opinion that I don’t even need a proper counter argument to refute it. I’m content to let your statement stand for itself. If you would like to challenge my knowledge on ANY and the topics you claim to know more about, I’d be happy to engage you about that. If you’re just going to sit here and blow smoke, making claims about what you know rather than demonstrating it, then you’re wasting your own time. 1) You haven’t posted a correct answer yet. You’ve posted an opinion (a frankly idiotic one at that), which you tried to pass off as fact, even though it is easily refuted by scientific evidence, anecdotal evidence, and basic logic and reasoning. 2) Considering that the majority of threads started on this board nowadays (the ones that aren’t parody’s) are rhetorical in nature (meant solely to start a conversation/debate), the fact that this thread followed suit shouldn’t have come as a surprise to you, and certainly shouldn’t have to be explained. As I’m sure you no doubt remember I used to be a Christian, and I’m very familiar with scripture (having read the bible many times), and defended various religious practices based on scripture for years. This question being rhetorical should have been obvious to you from the getgo and really doesn’t need to be spelled out! Again, if you want to challenge my knowledge (or debating skills) ASK me a legitimate question that you think helps your case. I guarantee that nothing you could provide is inarguable. Anything that you can come up with I can and will not only defeat, but I’ll defeat it easily! You’re welcome to try “smart guy”. We’ll see who abandons the debate first! Probably because that’s a straw man argument! There is no such thing as an “impartial” cut dude, especially one that has demonstrably strong feelings on the issue from your first response on the thread. But you can make whatever thread you want if that’s where your interest lies. I made the thread that I wanted to make, and I appreciate the attention you have given it. |
|
|
|
Post by nausea on Oct 9, 2017 18:11:30 GMT
Many false prophets are gone out into the world.
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Oct 9, 2017 20:06:13 GMT
|
|
