Female Circumcision.

[Tiapan]

Circumcision in the male may originally been to improve health out comes for our ancestors who didn't bath often. While female circumcision is simply a brutal, mentally and physically scarring, abhorrent, painful, mutilation procedure still adopted by few remaining uncivilized primitive neolithic cultures where it is used to promulgate severe female repression. The sooner it is eradicated the better.
Cheers

 

[John D. Brey]

I take it that is a joke
But I don't get it.

. . . You should no more assume that you're not getting it means it's a joke than that if a book strikes a head and makes a hollow sound the sound is coming from the book.


John

 

[John D. Brey]

This is the sort of bizarre and insupportable assertion that leaves me convinced that religion is a purely human invention.

. . . It's more supportable than you might suspect. How much Karl Popper, or Thomas Kuhn have you read lately?


John

 

[John D. Brey]

Actually Calvin invented nothing new, He trawled the scriptures and rearranged what he found, and made new connections from them, to suit his own agenda.

Much in the way you are doing.

. . . He was criticized in his day. Of course that's par for the course.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

And typing out his posts with his nose.


.

. . . Which is why his prose is slick as snot.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

What a crock. There is no sane reason why in some cultures the genitalia of females are mutilated. It is something usually practiced by uneducated people.

. . . Uneducated people often pop off about things they neither understand or have the patience to learn about.


John

 

[John D. Brey]

Huh? You're going to have to explain that.
They're features of Catholic theology, but certainly not of all theology. In most non-Abrahamic theologies such concepts don't even exist.
Male cutting is symbolic. Female cutting's supposed to be functional -- to reduce libido or prevent coitus. What on Earth are you talking about? I have no idea what this means.

Maimonides said male circumcision was to reduce sexual pleasure and thus frequency.

That's just the kinds of things people say when they turn a symbol into an idol whose possession is mostly ethnicity publicizing pablum.


John

 

[John D. Brey]

But alas, I've never considered any theology to be meaningful. In fact, I dislike the word itself, because it is not an apt description of what it pretends to be. Gods are generally thought to be transcendent and ineffable -- thus you can't "study" them at all. What theology actually does (and the proof of this is that every religion has its own theology and all are different) is to study what some humans THINK ABOUT God. Different thing altogether.

I read your article, but found it stretched credulity. After all, male circumcision has been around since before Abraham, and in places Abraham would never have known existed.

Its history of migration and evolution of the practice in multiple cultures and regions. South and east of the Mediterranean, it seems to have begun in Sudan and Ethiopia, and then was picked up the ancient Egyptian, early Semites, and only then be Jews (and of course much later, Muslims). In Oceania, circumcision is practiced by Australian Aborigines, and Polynesians, and there is some evidence of practice among Aztec and Mayan civilizations in the Americas.

The earliest historical record of circumcision comes from Egypt, in the form of an image of the circumcision of an adult carved into the tomb of Ankh-Mahor at Saqqara (c. 2400–2300 BCE).

Circumcision is the most important symbol in all of theology. The Judeo/Christian meaning of it is pretty well circumscribed in the thread "Scions of Faith;" though of a truth, these are not things that are going to reverberate with the unregenerate.


John

 

[John D. Brey]

It is only religion that would attempt to justify mutilating a child's body by calling it 'ritualistic'.
It is not a sign, it is barbaric.

Sending people to hell is barbaric too. So heck, pick you're poison.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

A ritual is nothing more than superstitious old timey crap. I mean, if it's largely benign I won't take issue with it, might even partake in them. But if science says that a ritual is harmful, well then it doesn't matter what any Holy books says, it's harmful and barbaric. Better left in the past.

. . . Your statement is fine for a theologically unenlightened humanist.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

This crap doesn't even make sense. Where do you get this stuff about contaminated "seed"????? Can you support this junk with anything scientific or did you just pull it out of your nether region?

. . . From a theological perspective, death is a congenital disease passed down through the male seed in any phallic conception. So before any of this makes sense a person would need to have been exposed to some serious theology. We live in a day and age when a person can come to adulthood and maturity without ever having been exposed to any serious theology.


John

 

[psychoslice]

A lot of crazy ideas came from the past and female circumcision is one of many.

 

[SomeRandom]

. . . Your statement is fine for a theologically unenlightened humanist.



John

I'd rather be a humanist who does not dismiss scientific facts like some barbaric dolt, than a robotic unquestioning dunce who just blindly follows an ancient book because I'm too intellectually lazy to think for myself.

Oh and I grew up Hindu and Catholic. Theologically unenlightened? I've learnt a lot more about theology than most religious people I know.

 

[Nietzsche]

. . . Ritual circumcision is "ritual." The blood of the niddah is the female form of the blood drawn from the male the eighth day. The niddah's blood is supposed natural, while the male's blood is drawn through human volition.

The thread seeder should have made it clear that female circumcision takes place naturally, trough oogenesis, which throws off the bad flesh in contaminated blood: the blood of the niddah.

Oogenesis is the biological reality of the mikveh. The mikveh is a ritual and not a real cleansing. The real cleansing takes place throgh oogenesis and niddah.


John

The **** are you talking about? This sounds like a weirdly described period, not what female circumcision really is.

 

[Altfish]

Sending people to hell is barbaric too. So heck, pick you're poison.

But hell doesn't exist, child mutilation does.

 

[columbus]

. . . It's more supportable than you might suspect. How much Karl Popper, or Thomas Kuhn have you read lately?


John

You believe that mutilation of children's genitals results in high tech scientific advances. And you think I should take your advice on reading materials?
You are delusional dude.
Tom

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Circumcision is the most important symbol in all of theology. The Judeo/Christian meaning of it is pretty well circumscribed in the thread "Scions of Faith;" though of a truth, these are not things that are going to reverberate with the unregenerate.

John

Really, in all theology? Hindu theology for example?

But frankly, this is becoming silly. Blood, as the ancients certainly did NOT know, is nothing but another bodily fluid. It has important biological tasks to perform, to be sure, but so do our other bodily fluids -- all of them. And where it comes from is simply unimportant, by the way. You can syphon it out of my arm, or out of my butt cheek and it will do exactly the same amount of good to the grateful recipient of a transfusion.

Your focus on circumcision, of all things, seems a bit ---- well, odd, really.

 

[IndigoStorm]

. . . Uneducated people often pop off about things they neither understand or have the patience to learn about.


John

I am rather well educated Citizen John and I repeat ... What a crock.