El-Amin Caliphate wrote:Ostroeuropa wrote:
If there was a temple and you did to all of them at once, knowing some would die, it would be far more clear to you. Why does prolonging the ritual change matters for you? Every year, in the US alone, 200ish children die from it. That's with moder medicine and science. Cast that projection backwards thousands of years and calculate how many dead children result from the practice.
It absolutely is a matter of child sacrifice, child mutilation, and adherence to dogmatic religious views that are anti-thetical to human wellbeing.
There may even be more dead Jews from circumcision than the holocaust. In terms of impact on the numbers of current Jews, Abraham is undoubtedly the bigger culprit, given the tendency to multiply over time.
(A dead baby 3000 years ago could amount to hundreds or thousands of modern people, compared to dozens for a dead baby from 1945.)
Sacrifice is intended to kill. Circumcision isn't supposed to kill babies, the fact that that happens is an anomaly and not supposed to happen.
Circumcision is not sacrifice because parents aren't trying to kill their children for the sake of God (SWT).
Given the background of the ritual is in lieu of child sacrifice, that doesn't much impress.
"Instead of killing your children, just offer me a piece of their flesh (And also some will still die, but that's an accident resulting from mutilating them.)"
In either case, the deaths show how ridiculous the argument that it isn't mutilation are.
It is a sacrifice of flesh intended to appease a bloodthirsty god, and sometimes it kills the victim. That strikes me as sacrifice. The covenant is one based on a ritual of partial child sacrifice, and your argument is that just because that partial sacrifice of children goes too far and fully sacrifices them that doesn't make it a ritual of child sacrifice.
It plainly is. What's more absurd about it is that viewed in this context, your god is plainly lying to you.
"Instead of killing some of your children to appease me, just cut bits off them, I promise it'll be fine."
So then imagine all of you doing it in the temple at once, and multiple ones of them still end up dead.
He must have known that would happen, right? He's omniscient, apparently. So he's effectively still demanding you kill children to appease him.
So basically his covenant is one that allows the practitioner the gift of denial and self-deception. It's a nod and a wink that "We aren't sacrificing children.", quite the character isn't he.