Circumcision without consent. Is it wrong?

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Well the deity of the bible couldn't even put a forbidden tree out of harms way.

I don’t mean some poor gardening decisions on earth. I’m talking about a third of angelic beings rebelling in heaven.

 

[Sheldon]

Sheldon said: ↑
Well the deity of the bible couldn't even put a forbidden tree out of harms way.

I don’t mean some poor gardening decisions on earth. I’m talking about a third of angelic beings rebelling in heaven.

I was drawing a (humorous) inference, from the biblical creation myth in Genesis.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Israel doesn’t get to lecture anyone on apartheid and genocide.

I never said that the modern state of Israel gets to lecture anyone on anything.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

So not one of the Abrahamic deities then?

No such thing as an Abrahamic deity here.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

So not one of the Abrahamic deities then?

Deities plural? Abraham had more than one God?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Deities plural? Abraham had more than one God?

The Bible seems to track the beliefs of the Hebrews from polytheists to monotheists.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

When you post evidence I will respond properly. By the way, YouTube videos, not evidence.

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.



Here is a list:

No, I explained why it should not be in effect. I can't help it if some extremists are pouting because they did not get their way. You don't seen to understand that the burden of proof for your particular beliefs need to be supported and you have not done that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

Hah! More evidence that God is an American!

 

[Ehav4Ever]

You don't seen to understand that the burden of proof for your particular beliefs need to be supported and you have not done that.

Actually, the burden of proof is on no one here. I am not trying to prove anything to you personally just like you are not trying to prove anything to me.

 

[ppp]

Actually, the burden of proof is on no one here. I am not trying to prove anything to you personally just like you are not trying to prove anything to me.

So, you are just making random assertions for no good reason.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

So, you are just making random assertions for no good reason.

No.

The following time line is a summary of my activity into this thread:

1. Post 813 - I made a comment to Evangelicalhumanist about the OP where I presented two questions which I preceded wit the statement "Maybe the real questions are."
   • What constitutes an absolute answer to the OP's question?
   • How far are people on either side willing to go to try enforce their view in reality, outside of a forum discussion?
2. Starting in post 813 mikkel_the_dane and myself were having a discussion about these questions I brought up.
3. In Post 822, in response to my very civil discussion with mikkel_the_dane I made the following comment. "Yeah, but from our perspective we Torath Mosheh Jews are in exile and it is to be expected as long as we exist outside our own context."
4. This comment, still in line with the OP, was commented on by someone outside of the discussion between myself and mikkel_the_dane.
   • The discussion about my statement, and whether or not Torath Mosheh Jews see ourselves as being in exile even now - and the historical definition of a Galuth started a number of discussions outside of the OP.
   • As part of that non-OP discussion I was requested to prove something. What I provided met the standards of proof that a large number of Israelis, Hebrew speakers, etc. hold as proof of something, for the statement. (Again, no one who doesn't know Hebrew will agree with this - of course.)
   • In the process of that non-OP back and forth had I warned that the questioner would not agree with it. I also made it clear that I was not trying to prove to them what a Galuth is, logically speaking there is no reason for either of to care, and that they can ask any of the Jews on RF if what I stated was correct.

So, I hope that gets you up to speed.

Cheers.

 

[KWED]

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.

So you claim that an expert translator, fluent in both source and target language, and with knowledge of the relevant field is necessary. A layman with no such expertise attempting to translate a text themselves would be foolish.
Again, I agree with you.

 

[Sheldon]

No such thing as an Abrahamic deity here.

Judaism, Islam, and Christianity, and any derivations thereof worship Abrahamic deities. These are traditionally considered to be both omniscient and omnipotent.

 

[Sheldon]

Deities plural? Abraham had more than one God?

I guess that depends whether you choose to believe one of the Abrahamic religions or not. To me they represent different deities people imagine are real, yes.

"The Abrahamic God is the conception of God that remains a common feature of all Abrahamic religions. The Abrahamic God is conceived of as eternal, omnipotent, omniscient and as the creator of the universe. God is further held to have the properties of holiness, justice, omnibenevolence, and omnipresence."

 

[Sheldon]

Actually, the burden of proof is on no one here. I am not trying to prove anything to you personally just like you are not trying to prove anything to me.

Anytime one asserts something to be the case, or to be true, which is effectively the same thing, they have a burden of proof. Though this will vary according to the nature of the claim. A belief is an acceptance that something is the case or is true, again I see no relevant difference there, and so a belief expressed publicly would carry an epistemological burden of proof, most especially in a public debate forum.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Anytime one asserts something to be the case, or to be true, which is effectively the same thing, they have a burden of proof.

If someone is doing what you stated with the intent that someone in particular who doesn't beleive them believes them then yes. If someone has no concern if a particular person or persons accepts it then no. One way for me to prove that point is the following:

1. Everything you have written is true for all those on RF who accept what you have written.
2. Everything I have written is wrong for all those on RF who accept what you have written.
3. What I have written is accepted only for Torath Mosheh Jews who know Hebrew, Aramaic, and Jewish Arabic but of course the response to this that one who wants to continue a debate will say not true, you have no proof, to which I will say - if you say so.
4. In comparison for those who accept your view everything I have written is 100% wrong, including the grammer I used to write it.

Discussion done.

 

[nPeace]

No idea what you are talking about or how it relates to my point.

When women were pregnant, and the baby was delivered, they didn't deliver the baby, or cut the umbilical cord, for fear of infection?
When a man got a bullet in his arm, they couldn't remove the bullet for fear of infection?
You are serious ... you are clueless about how ancient people sanitized instrument, aren't you?
Maybe Neanderthal man didn't have children.

You saved me the bother as your quote says that the NHS do not provide non-medical circumcisions.
Even when there is a medical issue, circumcision is the last resort...
"circumcision will only be recommended when other, less invasive and less risky treatments have been tried and haven't worked." (www.nhs.uk)

So not only does the NHS consider routine circumcision to have no appreciable health benefits, it considers even medical circumcision to be a risky treatment to be avoided if possible.

Nothing there says anything about a medical consensus. So I guess you just imagined it, and wrote it. Right?
All treatments are risky. Even the vaccination millions of people are asked to get.

There is clearly no good reason for the routine circumcision of infants. I think that puts the issue to bed, yes?

Those who want to circumcise their infant can do so, without the fear of killing them, or injuring them.
There is no science that says circumcision is bad. To the contrary, there is science that says there are benefits to circumcision, and doing it at a very early age, when clotting factors at at a peak.

Very few are. It is because of incomplete fission of a single zygote.

Incomplete = not perfect. Thank you.
Because of inherited sin, all humans are imperfect, and that gets passed down from generation to generation.

Oh dear god, there is seriously something wrong with you.

Personal attacks seem to be your strong point, but there are useless in debates.
Stroking ones ego is weak.

Do you genuinely believe that conjoined twins are because of someone's "sinful actions"?

There are, yes. That's similar to why some women are born without a vagina, or one that's not fully formed, and need an operation to correct what is a defect... obviously.
The same can be said for thousands of health issues.

Did you take into consideration the damage done by the chemicals man uses, and the substances they abuse.
All these contribute to health issues.
These are facts. Don't quickly shove them under the carpet, and pretend you don't see them.
There are things man have been doing for centuries which have negatively affected the health of living things. They only admit to this, when it is unavoidable to deny where the blame lies.

Nothing to do with God, you see.
Smoking & Tobacco Use
Smoking during pregnancy can cause tissue damage in the unborn baby, particularly in the lung and brain, and some studies suggests a link between maternal smoking and cleft lip.
Mothers who smoke are more likely to deliver their babies early. Preterm delivery is a leading cause of death, disability, and disease among newborns.

The article says mothers who smoke while pregnant or who are exposed to secondhand smoke after birth, their babies have weaker lungs than other babies, increasing the risk of many health problems.

Plastic
Exposure to Plastic Chemicals Before Conception Tied to Premature Births
Pregnant women exposed to phthalates, a group of chemicals used in many products, may be at increased risk for preterm birth, studies have found. Now a new study has found that exposure even before conception may increase the risk.

The decision to prohibit the manufacture of infant feeding bottles made of polycarbonate from March 2011 and the sale or import of the bottles from June 2011 came after a “qualified majority"...

Synthetic chemicals called phthalates are damaging children's brain development and therefore must be immediately banned from consumer products, according to a group of scientists and health professionals from Project TENDR.

We are now discovering that the use of plastic (with focus on plastic water/juice/sports drink bottles, food storage containers, and baby items) and resultant chemical leaching can have far-reaching health consequences, and is of especially great concern with regard to pregnancy.

I bet you'd love to torture a confession from a witch and then burn her.
There are no words...

You would lose that bet.
Your dreaming up such a thought though, does not surprise me.
I have no doubt you would lie and claim that it were true.

Of course it is. What are you on about?

So you think it's natural for animals to live on with healthy bones and teeth... some even living for millennia, while ours rot, and get fragile... and we can hardly live past a meager 120 years

I suppose you believe that a person free of sin will never age.

Correct. Actually it's a promise made by one who does not lie. Isaiah 33:24 I believe it.
I suppose you don't have faith in your science guys who one day hope to genetically create the perfect baby that lives on without dying.
I'm with those who take that position too.

You claim that circumcision is necessary to avoid serious health problems, and that foreskin removal has no negative effects.
Therefore the inclusion of the foreskin on the human body was a mistake, a design fault.

Where exactly did I claim "that circumcision is necessary to avoid serious health problems"? Post number please.

So once again, why did god design the human body with a design fault? Was it deliberate (if so why), or was god just incompetent?
(And once again, you will avoid addressing this key issue, because you have no response)

God did not design the human body with a design fault. So please get your facts straight before you ask these loaded questions... and resorting to patting yourself on the back.

 

[Sheldon]

Sheldon said: ↑
Anytime one asserts something to be the case, or to be true, which is effectively the same thing, they have a burden of proof.

If someone is doing what you stated with the intent that someone in particular who doesn't beleive them believes them then yes. If someone has no concern if a particular person or persons accepts it then no.

No, the intent is not relevant to the burden of proof, this is just an excuse some people make, in order to relentlessly make assertions about their beliefs, while refusing to support them with anything approaching objective evidence.

Discussion done.

Well there you go, quod erat demonstrandum.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

So you claim that an expert translator, fluent in both source and target language, and with knowledge of the relevant field is necessary. A layman with no such expertise attempting to translate a text themselves would be foolish.
Again, I agree with you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is odd. He does not appear to agree with you.