Joined Jul 09, 2011 at 03:38AM EDT
I would agree 100%, if after the child grew up they could go back in time to when they were an infant, or at least before puberty, and then have the procedure. Even a great advocate of circumcision would be reluctant to perform the procedure on adults.
I am marveled by the logic in these comments. Many claim circumcision is a terrible thing, but if that were the case wouldn’t those who have been circumcised be leading the charge against it, instead of doing the exact opposite?
If you prefer to be circumcised and choose to circumcise your kids: that’s okay
If you prefer to be uncircumcised and choose not to circumcise your kids: equally as okay
If you try to force or prohibit circumcision on others: not okay
Upvote if you agree
That quote is taken a bit out of context. Christians believe there is nothing else required to get to heaven other than faith, though still follow numerous Jewish rules and customs such as tithing, fasting, and circumcision. The quote was addressing a dispute regarding a division in a church over the place Jewish law and tradition had in regards to Christianity.
Anyway, I was referring to the origin of circumcision; reasons circumcision have varied heavily throughout history. It was for a time a Puritan tradition but for the past 100 years has been reccomended due to medical advantages, and many doctors still do today. IMO while it may reduce the chance of infection, doctors should make it clear to parents that it is entirely their preference.
According to the Jews and Muslims circumcision began with their common ancestor Abraham, though some debate it originated in Egypt. Christianity continued the tradition and circumcision stayed a common practice throughout the western world. At some point they figured out that it decreased chance of infection so it stopped being just a religious practice but also a medical one.
I say this because your statement that circumcision originated as “anti-masturbation protestant techniques” is simply not true.
You will probably be downvoted for your opinion, but what you say has a good amount of truth to it. Unless the officer encouraged Michael to be attack him, Michael as the assailant is not a victim. While this does not make it any less sad, I think we can all agree this really didn’t have anything to do with race.
According to Jewish History they have been circumcising for thousands of years…
I’m thinking you are either replying to the wrong comment or trolling. I never mentioned anything about how others should be circumsized, or a lover, or half the stuff you mentioned.
For myself I see no advantages in having it and only advantages in circumcision. I could care less if you rather be uncircumcised, but no reason to treat parents who do like monsters
I reccomend everyone, from the women participating in the “campaign” to commenters below, to read about some of the testimonies from men who were circumsized as adults:
I think everyone can agree it could have been handled differently, though I’ll reserve judgement for now. Hindsight is 20/20, and there are many factors in play.
Real quick question here:
Was Michael the aggressor in this situation? Like did he commit a crime, assault an officer, or pose a threat initially? I ask because if he was not and was just an innocent victim, then I view most of this rage as justified. However if Michael assaulted the officer and in response was shot, then that completely changes the dynamic.
I totally agree with your main point, and while many cops may use racial profiling in certain cases, that is a far cry from cops just going on murder sprees on certain ethnicities.
My post was addressed to the end of your post. Now if you are meaning that police that are “trigger happy” don’t discriminate usually and are saying that in relation to your main point, I agree. However it came across that you are saying that ALL police are very trigger happy, which I strongly disagree with.
While no doubt there are some cops with power-issues, If most cops killed whenever given the chance there would be a MUCH higher mortality rate.
Oh… wow, are you serious? Are women… having a hashtag campaign… about men’s bodies? It isn’t like in almost all situations the person giving birth(aka women) have say whether or not their child is circumcised?
I’m circumcised and I’m glad I am. I much rather have my parents make that choice when I am an infant and on a day I have high pain tolerance rather than try to decide to get that when I’m 20 and writhe around for 3 days in agony. I prefer it, I’ve yet to talk to a woman about it who doesn’t prefer, is this just about a bunch of women who have particular tastes and want to impose it on others?
I’d find it a bigger issue to keep people from giving their kids really terrible names, but that’s just me…
Why such intense down voting? I think it’s good the president said something but it was too soon to start with the “his family will never hold him again” talk when so little info was availible.
Of course I did, and I still fail to see how this is different than in past example. This exact fear of robots replacing us all is so old that everyone reading this is probably far younger.
The video also has several fallacies, but is well made at least and I found exciting. However since judging from the youtube comments no one likes simply posting a logical argument, I’ll switch gears:
If robots gets to the points where they replace us in majority of jobs, they will be complex enough to independently colonize other planets for us. I wonder which nation will establish a colony suitable for human life first…
And history repeats itself, yawn.
The same thing here has been going on every time a “revolution” in technology has eliminated jobs. People “lose their jobs” to machines and people freak out. In the end they always just move on to another line of work. This can sometimes be sad for the workers who make up 0.000001%(if that is even low enough) of the USA’s population(this also applies worldwide, I’m using the USA as an example), but the end result is a better economy and quality of life for the majority of the population.
The only way the “future” doomsayers lament about could happen is if:
1. There is nothing that humans can do that would be worth paying them for
2. There is nothing that humans can produce/sell that would be worth paying for
3. There is no way for a human to find the basic necessities to survive on their own(meaning no hunting, farming, clean free water, etc)
At that point the worry that “robots will replace us” will be overshadowed by either the apocalypse, whatever alien race has taken us over, or the robot uprising which has led to the above criteria.
From the second link:
“Even if you don’t believe that masturbation is a sin, if it is controlling you then it is a sin.”
“Even though these scriptures are used as an argument against masturbation, they do not necessarily make masturbation as a sin very clear. Yet, it is important that a person look at the reasons for masturbation to see if the desire behind the act is actually a sin.”
Jesus condemned many Jewish religious leaders based on how they viewed the law, mattering only in deed and not in heart. The exact opposite is what Jesus said is important, and also applies here. Jesus said “but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” Lusting over a specific person, in this case masturbating over them, is damaging relationally and is typically frowned upon in society. Letting it control you or lead you down the wrong path is also sinful, but the act is not.
I feel a fair example would be anger. Anger itself is not a sin, though many view it as such, and it is mentioned heavily throughout the bible. Anger is often warned about because it is easy for it to lead to sin, which is true. Sometimes anger is justified, and even Jesus displayed it.
This^^^ 100X this! The bible has a TON about the law, down to the washing of hands, so I doubt that an unlcear interpretation should be taken seriously.
And yea there is a big difference between thinking about a specific person and thinking about sexual things.
The vast majority of “religious nuts” have strange beliefs not found in the bible, and often contradict it. Most “average” Christians are normal people, though I will admit it does tend to attract quite a few nutters…
This, the topic is rarely brought up actually, and most Christians find it totally fine. 99% of the time I see it, it is used by someone trying to say “lol look at christians they so dumb!!!”