Not racist, hygienic observation based on experience.

as an Israeli (sort of) Jew, I can definitely relate to the "I got my penis cut off, so should my son have his" kind of mantra. If I had continued to live in Israel and had a son, it would be practically impossible to keep my son's penis intact without causing an uproar with my family and my surroundings. Almost everyone in Israel would still hold those old theories about hygiene and health as a way to hold off any real discussion about what it really means.

Yep, but as the video says, all of those potential risks (urinary tract, stds, etc) are better managed by simple hygiene or the use of a condom.

If there are legitimate medical reasons for a particular individual to be circumcised, then of course you should do it. But that's the rub for me. It is a surgical procedure that involves removing part of your body. It shouldn't be done just because some puritanical flake merchant hated sex.

Put it this way. We're all born with an appendix. It's utterly useless and every now and then, just straight kills you for no good reason. Surely every child should have this dangerous organ removed? Well, it turns out that's really not a good idea, because that would ultimately do more harm than good.

We don't go around doing random medical procedures for anything else, and the vast majority of the world gets along just fine with their dicks intact.

My last word on this is that I will continue to call it barbaric, because I'm trying (in my own tiny way) to change attitudes on this. Using milquetoast terms doesn't help that. I'm not going to change this myself, but hopefully I'm contributing to a gradual shift in attitudes where infant boys are not mutilated (even "harmlessly") on the whims of their parents.

edit: really really last word. Kudos to all involved for a thought provoking discussion. You can have a rational argument on the internet!

Aids was invented by shitty hygiene and eating monkeys

>> with all kinds of drama and tests, and poking and prodding.

In the western world, infant and maternal mortality has plummeted thanks to improved hygiene and good medical care, but these days there is a big emphasis on offering choice to the woman. In the UK If the pregnancy is deemed low risk then midwife only hospital delivery is offered as a basic right and the women can choose often choose pool birth, or home birth if they wish.
The latest NICE guidelines even go so far as to say that a woman should be able to ask for a c-section even if not medically indicated.
If the woman opts for something like opiate pain relief or an epideural then of course it becomes more medicalised but again it's a choice.

When you are on your second or third child, it often just pops out with little fuss where as the first baby is much more of an unknown. I'd be a lot less worried about a lady like this who has had 3 normal deliveries which i assume were uncomplicated.

The only think i'd say here is that babies get cold very quickly and so should be dried quickly rather than doused in brook water.

@alcom

I hear you shinyblurry, but I feel that your argument meanders back to the original appeal to authority that most believers resort to when justifying their positions. I also find that the related video links provided by TheGenk provide a valid refutation of the idea that God is The One who put values of good and evil inside each of us.

There is always an appeal to authority, either to God or to men. There are either objective moral values which are imposed by God, or morality is relative and determined by men. If morality is relative then there is no good or evil, and what is considered good today may be evil tomorrow. If it isn't absolutely wrong to murder indiscriminately, for instance, then if enough people agreed that it was right, it would be. Yet, this does not cohere with reality because we all know that murdering indiscriminately is absolutely wrong. The true test of a worldview is its coherence to reality and atheism is incoherent with our experience, whereas Christian theism describes it perfectly.

If you feel the videos provide a valid refutation, could you articulate the argument that they are using so we can discuss them here?

In my mind, Zacharias' incoherence with the atheist's ability to love and live morally is influenced by his own understanding of the source of moral truth. Because he defines the origin of pure love as Jesus' sacrifice on behalf of mankind, it is unfathomable to him that love could be found as a result of human survival/selection based of traits of cooperation, peace and mutual benefits of our social structure. His logic is therefore coloured and his mind is closed to certain ideas and possibilities.

The idea of agape love is a Christian idea, and agape love is unconditional love. You do not get agape love out of natural selection because it is sacrificial and sacrificing your well being or your life has a very negative impact on your chance to survive and pass on your genes. However, Christ provided the perfect example of agape love by sacrificing His life not only for His friends and family, but for people who hate and despise Him. In the natural sense, since Jesus failed to pass on His genes His traits should be selected out of the gene pool. Christ demonstrated a higher love that transcends the worldly idea of love. Often when the world speaks of love, it is speaking of eros love, which is love based on physical attraction, or philial love, which is brotherly love. The world knows very little of agape love outside of Christ. Christ taught agape love as the universal duty of men towards God:

Luke 6:27 "But I say to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you,
Luke 6:28 bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you.
Luke 6:29 To one who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also, and from one who takes away your cloak do not withhold your tunic either.
Luke 6:30 Give to everyone who begs from you, and from one who takes away your goods do not demand them back.
Luke 6:31 And as you wish that others would do to you, do so to them.
Luke 6:32 "If you love those who love you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them.
Luke 6:33 And if you do good to those who do good to you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners do the same.
Luke 6:34 And if you lend to those from whom you expect to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, to get back the same amount.
Luke 6:35 But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return, and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, for he is kind to the ungrateful and the evil.
Luke 6:36 Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful.

Indeed, moral foundations can and must change with the times. As our understanding of empathy, personal freedoms and the greater good of mankind develops with our societal and cultural evolution, so too must our standards of morality. This is most evident when concepts such as slavery and revenge (an eye for an eye) are seen as commonplace and acceptable throughout old scripture where modern society has evolved a greater understanding of the need for equality and basic human rights and policing and corrections as a measure of deterrence and rehabilitation for those individuals that stray from the path of greatest utility.

This is why slavery is no more, why racism is in decline and why eventually gay rights and green thought will be universal and our struggle to stifle the rights of gays and exploit the planet's resources to the point of our own self-extinction simply will be seen by future historians as sheer ignorance. Leviticus still pops up when people try to brand gays as deviant, even though most it is itself incoherent by today's standards. Remember that "defecating within the camp was unacceptable lest God step in it while walking in the evening." Well, today we just call that sewage management.

Some people, like Richard Dawkins, see infanticide as being the greatest utility. Some believe that to save the planet around 70 percent of the population must be exterminated. Green thought is to value the health of the planet above individual lives; to basically say that human lives are expendable to preserve the collective. This is why abortion is not questionable to many who hold these ideals; because human life isn't that valuable to them. I see many who have green thoughts contrast human beings to cattle or cockroaches. Utility is an insufficient moral standard because it is in the eye of the beholder.

In regards to the Levitical laws, those were given to the Jews and not the world, and for that time and place. God made a covenant with the Jewish people which they agreed to follow. The covenant God made with the world through Christ is different than the Mosaic law, and it makes those older laws irrelevant. If you would like to understand why God would give laws regarding slavery, or homosexuality, I can elucidate further.

In regards to your paraphrasing of Deuteronomy 23:13-14, this is really a classic example of how the scripture can be made to look like it is saying one thing, when it is actually saying something completely different. Did you read this scripture? It does not say that:

Deuteronomy 23:13 And you shall have a trowel with your tools, and when you sit down outside, you shall dig a hole with it and turn back and cover up your excrement.

Deuteronomy 23:14 Because the LORD your God walks in the midst of your camp, to deliver you and to give up your enemies before you, therefore your camp must be holy, so that he may not see anything indecent among you and turn away from you.

Gods home on Earth was in the tabernacle, and because God dwelled with His people, He exorted them to keep the camp holy out of reverence for Him.

The rules that God gave for cleanliness were 2500 years ahead of their time:

"In the Bible greater stress was placed upon prevention of disease than was given to the treatment of bodily ailments, and in this no race of people, before or since, has left us such a wealth of LAWS RELATIVE TO HYGIENE AND SANITATION as the Hebrews. These important laws, coming down through the ages, are still used to a marked degree in every country in the world sufficiently enlightened to observe them. One has but to read the book of Leviticus carefully and thoughtfully to conclude that the admonitions of Moses contained therein are, in fact, the groundwork of most of today's sanitary laws. As one closes the book, he must, regardless of his spiritual leanings, feel that the wisdom therein expressed regarding the rules to protect health are superior to any which then existed in the world and that to this day they have been little improved upon" (Magic, Myth and Medicine, Atkinson, p. 20). Dr. D. T. Atkinson

What's interesting about that is that Moses was trained in the knowledge of the Egyptians, the most advanced civilization in the world at that time. Yet you will not find even a shred of it in the bible. Their understanding of medicine at that time led to them doing things like rubbing feces into wounds; ie, it was completely primitive in comparison to the commands that God gave to Moses about cleanliness. Moses didn't know about germs but God did.

Paedophilia will never emerge as acceptable because it violates our basic understanding of human rights and the acceptable age of sexual consent. I know this is a common warning about the "slippery slope of a Godless definition of morality," but it's really a red herring. Do you honestly think society would someday deem that it carries a benefit to society? I just can't see it happening.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty_in_Ancient_Greece

I do agree that banning online gambling while allowing for local gambling (in some states) is stupid, as well as banning drugs but not cigarettes or alcohol. As for public nudity, I personally wouldn't want to see most people nude as most people don't have attractive bodies. There's also the hygienic issue of naked people preparing and serving food, sitting on public benches and seats, etc. While there certainly is a naturist movement, it's comprised of a tiny portion of the population and is in no way indicative of the general views towards public nudity. Public nudity is banned because the vast majority of the population finds it offensive. Private nudity, however, is not banned, unlike Falun Gong which is banned outright and cannot legally be practiced anywhere in China, in private or public.

That's all besides the point, however. There is still no case where the U.S. government will imprison people (without even a trial) simply for practicing a spiritual belief. That's exactly what China is doing to Falun Gong practitioners. Despite what you said earlier, it really does seem like you're trying to condemn the U.S. above all else. I'm not patriotic by any means but we're talking about blatant religious persecution here and it simply isn't comparable to bans on drugs, gambling or public nudity.

>> ^EMPIRE:

I do actually.
It feels more refreshing than stick deodorants, and never leaves marks on my clothes.

>> ^Solid_Muldoon:
Who still uses spray deodorant?
Oh, yeah. Guys who are so stupid they will do something incredibly stupid and post it on line to show the world how stupid they are.
"Hey! Look at me! I'm an idiot! Isn't it awesome how big an idiot I am! I am the most awesome idiot! I rool!"



And sticks really don't feel as hygienic than sprays, just thinking of putting that gunk collecting thing repeatedly to my armpit, pulling hair out from that stick.. Morning, not so fresh, hurry to go... Then you get home, shower and use that same bloody thing again... yak, who the hell uses stick deodorants?

>> ^PlayhousePals:

>> ^bookface:
I don't know one guy who would do that, nor one girl who'd be so cool about it. Not a one.

You need to get out more =oD


Or maybe I'm just hanging with the wrong people. Wouldn't be the first time 8~)

>> ^bookface:

I don't know one guy who would do that, nor one girl who'd be so cool about it. Not a one.


You need to get out more =oD

It certainly seems to like feminine hygiene products...>> ^doogle:

I wonder if you can specify what it can make, or it just forms whatever it can out of the scrap it has.

>> ^hpqp:

If your guy refuses to kiss you after a bj, you might want to be wary of his hygiene. Same goes for the tuna taco


Taco flavoured keeses for my beeeeen!

If your guy refuses to kiss you after a bj, you might want to be wary of his hygiene. Same goes for the tuna taco