Circumcision without consent. Is it wrong?

[mikkel_the_dane]

You appear to be too hung up on subjective and objective. Those concepts work well in the sciences, but not so much in human interaction. Morality is a complex subject, but still understandable. Here is a short talk on it:

Yeah, your bias is showing.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That which is logically consistent. If one begins to contradict oneself one's views are not rational.

So please relate that to this debate.

 

[nPeace]

Wait. So you are claiming that circumcision under non-sterile conditions is less risky than no circumcision?

Utter nonsense!

Non-sterile? Where did you get that from? KWED's book?

If it is "reasonable" to remove the foreskin to avoid the slight chance of health problems, then it is obviously more "reasonable" to create male humans without a foreskin in the first place.

So, why did your "expert" deliberately create a faulty product ?

For one thing, I don't know where you pulled "slight chance" from. Was it out of a hat?

For another thing, health issues are a result of sin, and not God's doing.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Can you be a little clearer? Here is a hint, it is pointless posting any script in Hebrew, it is not evidence and no one else can read it.

I take a different look at it. If you can't read it that means you haven't really researched the issue. So, that means that you don't really know what the concept of the Galuth is or what Torath Mosheh is.

Kind of like how I can't claim to know what is an accurate "Chinese" source of information about the following text:

Since I haven't actually read any histories of China from the Chinese perspectives that were written in Chinese. Further, by me not knowing Chinese I refuse to make statements on something that I really don't know anything about.

By like token, if a person hasn't actually done archeological work in a particular location they can't claim to know what is and isn't actually there.

Besides, there are a handful of Hebrew readers on RF who can read Hebrew. You can easily ask them to confirm if what I presented is actually something that is a) a more than 2,000 year old concept/practice of Torath Mosheh Jews and b) if the modern state of Israel meets the Torath Mosheh standard for an end of the galuth. If they all say yes, yet you want to claim it does - then you stand on that hill on your own. Nevermind that I actually translated it for you in a later post, you can still ask some other RF's who know Hebrew to confirm what I wrote.

Yet, again. It is not like I am trying to convince you because you and I have different standards for what we consider to be historical facts AND if you and I don't have the same knowledge base on what it takes to establish a historical fact then it stands to reason that any discussion on the matter is going to be extremely one sided.

There are things that I know because I can read the languages in question and there are things that you don't because you can't. That is just the honest truth of this matter. Just like in your home country there are things that I don't know about your culture because I am not from your country and I know nothing of your culture. Thus, I would not assume to make associations that I haven't confirmed with first hand knowledge/research.

I hope that helps.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I take a different look at it. If you can't read it that means you haven't really researched the issue. So, that means that you don't really know what the concept of the Galuth is or what Torath Mosheh is.

Kind of like how I can't claim to know what is an accurate "Chinese" source of information about the following text:

View attachment 62670

Since I haven't actually read any histories of China from the Chinese perspectives that were written in Chinese. Further, by me not knowing Chinese I refuse to make statements on something that I really don't know anything about.

By like token, if a person hasn't actually done archeological work in a particular location they can't claim to know what is and isn't actually there.

Besides, there are a handful of Hebrew readers on RF who can read Hebrew. You can easily ask them to confirm if what I presented is actually something that is a) a more than 2,000 year old concept/practice of Torath Mosheh Jews and b) if the modern state of Israel meets the Torath Mosheh standard for an end of the galuth. If they all say no, yet you want to claim it does - then you stand on that hill on your own. Nevermind that I actually translated it for you in a later post, you can still ask some other RF's who know Hebrew to confirm what I wrote.

Yet, again. It is not like I am trying to convince you because you and I have different standards for what we consider to be historical facts AND if you and I don't have the same knowledge base on what it takes to establish a historical fact then it stands to reason that any discussion on the matter is going to be extremely one sided.

There are things that I know because I can read the languages in question and there are things that you don't because you can't. That is just the honest truth of this matter. Just like in your home country there are things that I don't know about your culture because I am not from your country and I know nothing of your culture. Thus, I would not assume to make associations that I haven't confirmed with first hand knowledge/research.

I hope that helps.

That is an incredibly poor argument. The fact is that if you cannot explain it in your native tongue then you do not understand it at all.

By the way, it really does not matter what the script supposedly says. You need to defend your claim that your beliefs are significantly different from what is in the first five books of the Old Testament. What did the translators get wrong and why?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That is an incredibly poor argument. The fact is that if you cannot explain it in your native tongue then you do not understand it at all.

By the way, it really does not matter what the script supposedly says. You need to defend your claim that your beliefs are significantly different from what is in the first five books of the Old Testament. What did the translators get wrong and why?

No, not really. Take an example like trust in government. You will never understand it, unless you live it. There is no scientific standard for it, because it is not physical and all that jazz. It is a state of mind that you pick up by being in the culture.
You could read translations of it and study it, but unless you become a part of the actual culture you will miss out on it to certain degree.

In even more scientific terms as I learned it. Your culture forms parts of your brain growing up and if you don't have that, it is not possible just to get it by just reading about.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, not really. Take an example like trust in government. You will never understand it, unless you live it. There is no scientific standard for it, because it is not physical and all that jazz. It is a state of mind that you pick up by being in the culture.
You could read translations of it and study it, but unless you become a part of the actual culture you will miss out on it to certain degree.

In even more scientific terms as I learned it. Your culture forms parts of your brain growing up and if you don't have that, it is not possible just to get it by just reading about.

Why do you think that a person could not explain trust in government? One could relate it to families, and just about everyone has had a family. The only one that would probably have difficulty understanding this would be a psychopath. All that it takes to understand government is the least little bit of empathy.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Why do you think that a person could not explain trust in government? One could relate it to families, and just about everyone has had a family. The only one that would probably have difficulty understanding this would be a psychopath. All that it takes to understand government is the least little bit of empathy.

Empathy is tied to in and out group. That is the dark side of empathy. You can't trust the government unless you can consider them a part of your in group.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Empathy is tied to in and out group. That is the dark side of empathy. You can't trust the government unless you can consider them a part of your in group.

we were discussing the concept of why people trust government. Not that one should trust a particular government.

 

[KWED]

Non-sterile? Where did you get that from? KWED's book?

So you think that circumcisions carried out in the 1st millennium BC were all under sterile conditions?
Oh, you are funny.

For one thing, I don't know where you pulled "slight chance" from. Was it out of a hat?

Er, no. Medical consensus. The NHS refuse to perform non-medical circumcisions because there are no appreciable health benefits.

For another thing, health issues are a result of sin, and not God's doing.

Whuh?
You think babies get phimosis because they have sinned?
You are quite a piece of work.

But the point here is that god created the human body with a fault, according to you. Why did he do that? (You have no idea, do you?)

 

[KWED]

I take a different look at it. If you can't read it that means you haven't really researched the issue. So, that means that you don't really know what the concept of the Galuth is or what Torath Mosheh is.

Kind of like how I can't claim to know what is an accurate "Chinese" source of information about the following text:

View attachment 62670

Since I haven't actually read any histories of China from the Chinese perspectives that were written in Chinese. Further, by me not knowing Chinese I refuse to make statements on something that I really don't know anything about.

By like token, if a person hasn't actually done archeological work in a particular location they can't claim to know what is and isn't actually there.

Besides, there are a handful of Hebrew readers on RF who can read Hebrew. You can easily ask them to confirm if what I presented is actually something that is a) a more than 2,000 year old concept/practice of Torath Mosheh Jews and b) if the modern state of Israel meets the Torath Mosheh standard for an end of the galuth. If they all say yes, yet you want to claim it does - then you stand on that hill on your own. Nevermind that I actually translated it for you in a later post, you can still ask some other RF's who know Hebrew to confirm what I wrote.

Yet, again. It is not like I am trying to convince you because you and I have different standards for what we consider to be historical facts AND if you and I don't have the same knowledge base on what it takes to establish a historical fact then it stands to reason that any discussion on the matter is going to be extremely one sided.

There are things that I know because I can read the languages in question and there are things that you don't because you can't. That is just the honest truth of this matter. Just like in your home country there are things that I don't know about your culture because I am not from your country and I know nothing of your culture. Thus, I would not assume to make associations that I haven't confirmed with first hand knowledge/research.

I hope that helps.

While studying physics and chemistry at postgrad level, I have never been told by my professors that I must read any works in their original German or Russian or Japanese or whatever.
Any claim that you must study a work in its original language in order to understand it is demonstrable nonsense.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

we were discussing the concept of why people trust government. Not that one should trust a particular government.

Yeah and not how they actually do it. So you can tell a non-governmental culture - here is why we do it based on our culture. Now you do it.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

That is an incredibly poor argument. The fact is that if you cannot explain it in your native tongue then you do not understand it at all.

I explained it in both of my native tongues. (Multi-linqual childhood) Besides, you haven't provided any evidence to the contrary. Yet, I agree that you don't have to.

By the way, it really does not matter what the script supposedly says.

Actually, it does matter. You claimed that Torath Mosheh Jews don't consider the Galuth to still be in effect. I showed evidence that ALL Torath Mosheh Jews do. You have haven't countered it with anything show Torath Mosheh Jews who claim the Galuth is over. Done deal.

You need to defend your claim that your beliefs are significantly different from what is in the first five books of the Old Testament. What did the translators get wrong and why?

Here is a list:

 

[Ehav4Ever]

While studying physics and chemistry at postgrad level, I have never been told by my professors that I must read any works in their original German or Russian or Japanese or whatever.
Any claim that you must study a work in its original language in order to understand it is demonstrable nonsense.

I am sure that they told you that you needed some of the basic prerequisites before you actually started working physics and chemistry. Such as:

• Kinetic energy, potential energy, forces (F=ma), velocity, a conceptual idea of momentum;
• Vectors and how to graph them; Skills:
• Factoring simple polynomials;
• Use of the quadratic equation;
• Multi-step problem solving.
• Algebra
• Calculus, etc.

A person can say that no one needs any of this to "correctly" understand physics and chemistry at a University level. Yet, anyone who has studied physics and chemistry at any level knows that the prerequesite math is essential in a "correct" understanding. Otherwise anyone can create whatever bro-science the want.

This is especially true if physics and chemistry are proven to only correctly work when someone understands all of the basic math needed.

Also, if this were not the case then Athiest and Creationist would be debating what is actually science and what is not. I.e. there are some scientists who rightly claim that Creationists don't understand physics and chemistry because they haven't studied it at a professional level.

The same is true for a more than 3,000 year old Middle Eastern language which produced a text that was written with notes in its original language that was written in a way that only Jews, using, the Oral Torah that came along with it would understand correctly.

 

[nPeace]

So you think that circumcisions carried out in the 1st millennium BC were all under sterile conditions?
Oh, you are funny.

I guess you had no 'old Western days'.

Er, no. Medical consensus. The NHS refuse to perform non-medical circumcisions because there are no appreciable health benefits.

Please provide a source stating this consensus.
You would not want me to think you lied again, would you.

Spoiler

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.

Whuh?
You think babies get phimosis because they have sinned?
You are quite a piece of work.

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.

Besides, you think growing old and wrinkly. with worn out bones and failed vision is natural.

But the point here is that god created the human body with a fault, according to you. Why did he do that? (You have no idea, do you?)

No. That's according to you.
Keep up this lying, and I have nothing more to say to you. Okay?

 

[Ehav4Ever]

What did the translators get wrong and why?

Here are a few more:

Here are some Christians even talking about the issue of how "they (Christian scholars)" decide to translate.

 

[Sheldon]

I don't know where you pulled "slight chance" from. Was it out of a hat?

For another thing, health issues are a result of sin, and not God's doing.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Here are a few more:

Here are some Christians even talking about the issue of how "they (Christian scholars)" decide to translate.

Sorry, but you were the one that tried to make a claim.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yeah and not how they actually do it. So you can tell a non-governmental culture - here is why we do it based on our culture. Now you do it.

No, not based on culture. Try to get your arguments straight. That is two in a row.

 

[KWED]

I am sure that they told you that you needed some of the basic prerequisites before you actually started working physics and chemistry. Such as:

• Kinetic energy, potential energy, forces (F=ma), velocity, a conceptual idea of momentum;
• Vectors and how to graph them; Skills:
• Factoring simple polynomials;
• Use of the quadratic equation;
• Multi-step problem solving.
• Algebra
• Calculus, etc.

A person can say that no one needs any of this to "correctly" understand physics and chemistry at a University level. Yet, anyone who has studied physics and chemistry at any level knows that the prerequesite math is essential in a "correct" understanding. Otherwise anyone can create whatever bro-science the want.

This is especially true if physics and chemistry are proven to only correctly work when someone understands all of the basic math needed.

Also, if this were not the case then Athiest and Creationist would be debating what is actually science and what is not. I.e. there are some scientists who rightly claim that Creationists don't understand physics and chemistry because they haven't studied it at a professional level.

The same is true for a more than 3,000 year old Middle Eastern language which produced a text that was written with notes in its original language that was written in a way that only Jews, using, the Oral Torah that came along with it would understand correctly.

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.