KWED
Scratching head, scratching knee
Be aware that any article or video that claims "THE TRUTH...!" about anything is almost certainly talking rubbish.
A simple life hack to avoid later embarrassment.
You're welcome.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Be aware that any article or video that claims "THE TRUTH...!" about anything is almost certainly talking rubbish.
No idea what you are talking about or how it relates to my point.I guess you had no 'old Western days'.
You saved me the bother as your quote says that the NHS do not provide non-medical circumcisions.Please provide a source stating this consensus.
You would not want me to think you lied again, would you.
NHS Circumcision - IMC Circumcision Clinic London
The National Health Service (NHS) took the decision not to offer circumcision for religious, cultural, social or personal reasons – also known as non-therapeutic – in 1949, very soon after its inception. This is because circumcision is not a medical necessity. Their decision led to a decline in the number of individuals undergoing circumcision in the United Kingdom.
A number of NHS hospitals did re-start offering offer a free circumcision service locally to parents, especially during the 1980s, however this is this is now rare or non-existent.
The situation may be changing in light of recent data showing that the impact of circumcision on HIV prevention is greater than what was previously thought. For this reason, the United States Public Health Department (the CDC) have recently change their stance on circumcision and state that the the benefits now outweigh the risks and recommend circumcision. In the last decade, many organisations fighting HIV, such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, have launched circumcision promotion campaigns in Africa to prevent HIV.
Very few are. It is because of incomplete fission of a single zygote.Why do you think twin babies are born conjoined,
****Or... I'm sorry, but if I listed all the health issues known to be associated with man's sinful actions, as well as defects he passes down, I would need a library.
Of course it is. What are you on about?Besides, you think growing old and wrinkly. with worn out bones and failed vision is natural.
You claim that circumcision is necessary to avoid serious health problems, and that foreskin removal has no negative effects.No. That's according to you.
Keep up this lying, and I have nothing more to say to you. Okay?
Yeah, but there is no one definition of suffering in non-subjective terms. So I use another understanding of suffering and other social and cultural terms and we end with different understandings. And you can't solve that with external sensory observation, rationality and all those other words. We individually think/feel differently. That is where it ends.
Irrelevant. It doesn't matter if we use different definitions for any given term as long as we are able to explain what our definitions are to each other.
It is not the finger pointing to the moon (the word) that matters but rather the moon itself (what meaning the word is intended to convey).
Ok. So you admit that we don't need to understand Hebrew or Koine Greek or Classical Arabic to understand ancient scripture - we just need to understand basic philosophical concepts and historical context.
Yeah, I kinda agree with you there.
I can't speak for Greek, but one can definately understand incorrectly a text without knowing the language it was written in.
If one wants to understand "correctly" the text as the author intented one would defiantely need to understand how the language (which a part of the philosophical concepts and historical context) they wrote it in works.
I.e. the only way ancient Hebrew as used by Jews is understood modernly because of how it was described in the Mishnah, the Talmud, the Geonim, the Rishonim, etc. and of course people who know all of these and read the language have the proper tools to understand it and investigate elements of it not found or covered by those who try to translate the "philosophical concepts and historical context."
Everyone else is simply using what those translate modernly what they are able to try and "help" a preson who is illeterate in said language to under the "philosophical concepts and historical context." Of course the illterate in said language are at the mercy of whether or not those they rely on got the "philosophical concepts and historical context" correct.
So, we can definately agree on that. Great comment.
I can't speak for Greek, but one can definately understand incorrectly a text without knowing the language it was written in.
If one wants to understand "correctly" the text as the author intented one would defiantely need to understand how the language (which a part of the philosophical concepts and historical context) they wrote it in works.
I.e. the only way ancient Hebrew as used by Jews is understood modernly because of how it was described in the Mishnah, the Talmud, the Geonim, the Rishonim, etc. and of course people who know all of these and read the language have the proper tools to understand it and investigate elements of it not found or covered by those who try to translate the "philosophical concepts and historical context."
Everyone else is simply using what those translate modernly what they are able to try and "help" a preson who is illeterate in said language to under the "philosophical concepts and historical context." Of course the illterate in said language are at the mercy of whether or not those they rely on got the "philosophical concepts and historical context" correct.
So, we can definately agree on that. Great comment.
An omniscient omnipotent deity, whose message is hampered by being able to communicate only as a monoglot? That doesn't make much sense now does it.
An omniscient omnipotent deity, whose message is hampered by being able to communicate only as a monoglot? That doesn't make much sense now does it.
Don't know. You would have to ask something or someone that/who identifies himself/herself/itself that way and meets that description.
So you're saying you don't believe in an omniscient omnipotent deity?
So you're saying you don't believe in an omniscient omnipotent deity?
Heaven is a dictatorship and God couldn’t even rule THAT without problems.What is your proof and evidence that dictatorships are bad?
If you say none, but it is your opinion, I will stop.
Heaven is a dictatorship and God couldn’t even rule THAT without problems.
Nope.
Heaven is a dictatorship and God couldn’t even rule THAT without problems.
My agenda is to live in a country that respects basic human rights. Kids should not suffer for religion. Killing kids is fine in the Bible. We would be monsters if we made religious accommodations for it.There is no we. There are people who have agendas. That is a reality. You have an agenda in life, your family has an agenda, your country has an angenda, etc. I also have an agenda, my family has an agenda, and my nation has an agenda, etc. I may see your agenda as a pattern that me and mine should avoid, because we have experienced what your agenda, and while you may see mine as something to be broken
Israel doesn’t get to lecture anyone on apartheid and genocide.Jim Crow was like that, Eugenics was like that, etc.
Yes, that is indeed irrelevant, because I can't cause suffering in you, because my definition means, you can't be suffering. Or in reverse.
It is a fact that it is how the story goes.Okay. Is that a fact or your personal opinion?