Circumcision: Double Standard?

[Jochistan]

Sort of a heavy handed accusation, don't you think?

No. If you don't respond to infant's pain, you're sociopath. It's that simple.

Not really, theres this thing different than not having a massive reaction, called keeping a level head. You should try it.

I can't tell if that's sarcasm or concession.

It doesn't care, sociopaths have no conscience or compassion.

Or not, I guess.

[Gim]

So, smaller movements do not count?

Not until the majority of secular Jews subscribe to them.

Nevertheless, this is still denial of rights.

[Morr]

Why should one person be allowed to inflict their secular beliefs and practices on others? I'm at least coming from a position where my ideology being objectively correct is inherently written into it. But yours, yours makes no claim to be objectively better than the ideology next door, so it seems arbitrary to give it precedence.

How do you know Dakini's ideology doesn't include the belief that it's objectively better than the one next door? Not all irreligious people believe in moral relativism.

When she gives some argument substantiating her morality as deeper than preference, I'll consider. The idea of objective morality in secularism pretty much hasn't existed since the Enlightenment in any academic sense.

[Jochistan]

Obviously it's painful for the child. why don't they just use anesthesia? thought that was how they did it.

[Test242]

You're all being ridiculous. Just make a new Bible. The Catholic Church did it and the Protestants did it.

[Gim]

Obviously it's painful for the child. why don't they just use anesthesia? thought that was how they did it.

http://www.webmd.com/parenting/baby/new ... ens-brains

[Jochistan]

You're all being ridiculous. Just make a new Bible. The Catholic Church did it and the Protestants did it.

I really don't follow that one much anymore. But that's a pretty massive simplification.

[Jochistan]

Obviously it's painful for the child. why don't they just use anesthesia? thought that was how they did it.

http://www.webmd.com/parenting/baby/new ... ens-brains

hmm.

[Gim]

You're all being ridiculous. Just make a new Bible. The Catholic Church did it and the Protestants did it.

No. Bible has been simplified and translated, but not altered at all.

[Test242]

hmm.

Try this: just don't mutilate people.

[Morr]

I think if they refuse to bring them to doctors, yes. Bringing them to faith healers as well doesn't exclude that. If you're referring to Christian scientists, their religion doesn't exactly predate the nation, so it couldn't very well be grandfathered in anyway.

Why does the age of a religion dictate whether it should be treated seriously?

And so you're okay with charging parents with negligence when they only take their children to faith healers and the child dies.

Because of grandfather clauses.

No, I'm not. I'm okay with parents taking their kids to faith healers, that doesn't mean I'm okay with them withholding medical help from their kids.

Why is it that you think it's okay for parents to make other questionable and unnecessary medical decisions for their children?

Christian Science is basically a heresy. Judaism is Phariseeism, but the circumcision aspect of it was definitely established as something prior to baptism as a mark of joining a covenant, and I cannot condemn it in an absolute sense without condemning my own faith. I can condemn circumcision for aesthetics though.

[Test242]

No. Bible has been simplified and translated, but not altered at all.

Simplification is alteration.

[Morr]

Even from a Christian point of view, why is this a problem? Would you argue that crucifying people is morally acceptable because it was done to Christ?

1 Corinthians 7:19

Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God.

This is the new covenant, which Jews don't adhere to.

[Jochistan]

hmm.

Try this: just don't mutilate people.

I mean, I'm tempted to go over to your point of view, but you did call me a sociopath, so...

[Gim]

No. Bible has been simplified and translated, but not altered at all.

Simplification is alteration.

Same meaning is still there, so it hasn't been altered.

[Morr]

Not until the majority of secular Jews subscribe to them.

Nevertheless, this is still denial of rights.

Which ones? Their natural rights? Their legal rights? Or their divine rights?

[Gim]

Nevertheless, this is still denial of rights.

Which ones? Their natural rights? Their legal rights? Or their divine rights?

Natural rights. Humans do not have divine rights, since they are not divine. Humans do not equal gods.

[Morr]

You're all being ridiculous. Just make a new Bible. The Catholic Church did it and the Protestants did it.

Protestants truncated the Bible, they didn't really make a new one other than that though. Neither did the Catholic-Orthodox Church.

[Test242]

I mean, I'm tempted to go over to your point of view, but you did call me a sociopath, so...

You are a sociopath. You're finicky about harming children.

[USS Monitor]

Even from a Christian point of view, why is this a problem? Would you argue that crucifying people is morally acceptable because it was done to Christ?

Because circumcision was the pledge of the former covenant, derp.

And maybe that's part of why God thought you needed a new one? Cos the old one was violating people's rights? You never know.

[Jochistan]

To be honest, even with t\witnessing it, I can see both sides of the issue. It is extremely painful, even for a moment that the child never remembers. But, (when done in sterile environments) it causes no pain to the child later, (if male) and it's not causing serious harm, or pain for more than a short while. But it's still a lot of unnecessary pain for a baby to go through. Even if they never remember it.

[Morr]

Which ones? Their natural rights? Their legal rights? Or their divine rights?

Natural rights. Humans do not have divine rights, since they are not divine. Humans do not equal gods.

Which theory of natural rights are you referencing?

Humans are divine, we are icons of God, made in His image. In that sense, we are, in fact, gods.

"Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?"
John 10:34

reference to
"I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High."
Psalm 82:6

[Gim]

Because circumcision was the pledge of the former covenant, derp.

And maybe that's part of why God thought you needed a new one? Cos the old one was violating people's rights? You never know.

Well, God was looking for peoples' obedience towards him, but he knew that people were disobeying him and becoming circumcised, thinking that circumcision is the way towards going to Heaven. So, God made a new covenant, refreshing the minds of people into thinking that obedience is the crux of His words, not tradition or action.

[Test242]

And maybe that's part of why God thought you needed a new one? Cos the old one was violating people's rights? You never know.

Greek despotate thought you needed a new one.

[Jochistan]

I mean, I'm tempted to go over to your point of view, but you did call me a sociopath, so...

You are a sociopath. You're finicky about harming children.

No, I'm not. I'm just keeping a level head. something you should try instead of appealing to emotion all the time.