Note: it was not from a general act of circumcision, but from the particular procedure - the "oral suction" of the wound. This is not a standard procedure among religious Jews in this day and age and should be prohibited, as both icky and dangerous. But the problem here is not with circumcision as such.

"Under the practice, the rabbi or mohel removes blood from the wound with his mouth — a practice city health officials have criticized, saying it carried “inherent risks” for babies."

I'd be curious to know the reasoning as to why this particular practice is so important to the procedure. Seems very odd to me.

My wife is just reading about diseases that affect the foreskin right now.

re: #2 dragonfire1981

It's a Chabad custom. The procedure happens so quickly (less than one second) that this extra step is taken to 'prove' to those attending that the procedure was actually performed. I'm sure there is some European history involved in some form or fashion, but basically it's a proof thing.

This is the down side of Chassidism.

re: #2 dragonfire1981

More here: [Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

Hey, wait a second. This isn't about circumcision--the mohel had herpes. He had no business doing this procedure in the first place.

A. I don't understand why religious people insist on inflicting their beliefs on other people's bodies.

B. If your superstitions require that you lop off perfectly good parts of your child, why can't you at least have a surgeon do it in a sterile environment instead of what is the equivalent of the village shaman.

re: #6 Bob Levin

No, it's about how a religious ritual endangers children.

re: #6 Bob Levin

Given that anyone can have HPV, all circumcisions should be done in a perfectly sterile manner.

re: #9 Obdicut

You forgot to add "...to an adult benefiting from informed consent."

re: #7 kreyagg

The foreskin isn't 'perfectly good'. There are medical problems that only occur with it, and ones that only occur if it's removed. It's about even, with, in these days of AIDS, a slight bias towards circumcision.

re: #10 kreyagg

You forgot to add "...to an adult benefiting from informed consent."

No, I didn't, because I disagree with you. Also, in medicine, repetition generally equals skill. A surgeon who only performs a few circumcisions a year is going to be far less proficient than a mohel who performs them regularly.

Are you also against adults enrolling their kids in football, having them taught ballet, or having them swim in rivers?

re: #11 Obdicut

There may be conditions specific to the foreskin which are vanishingly rare, I agree. But that just means that there is a "Medically necessary" test to pass before you perform that medical procedure on a child. Otherwise there is zero harm in allowing that person to make that decision as an adult.

re: #13 kreyagg

There may be conditions specific to the foreskin which are vanishingly rare, I agree..

Just as any problems related to circumcision are vanishingly rare.

But that just means that there is a "Medically necessary" test to pass before you perform that medical procedure on a child.

No, that doesn't. That's begging the argument.

Again:

Are you also against adults enrolling their kids in football, having them taught ballet, or having them swim in rivers?

re: #8 kreyagg

Read the history of scientific surgery, then we'll talk. If the names Semmelweis, Lister, and Long don't come up in your research, then we'll talk about bibliography. We aren't even up to religion.

And mind you, circumcision was taking place, and babies were not dying when dying is exactly what would happen to anyone undergoing any surgery, even a minor cut in non-religious environments.

re: #9 Obdicut

Absolutely. This particular mohel should have a few legal problems coming up in his future.

re: #14 Obdicut

Again:

Are you also against adults enrolling their kids in football, having them taught ballet, or having them swim in rivers?

Actually there are sound reasons to prohibit children from playing American Football, I think recent studies about the long term effects of concussions should make it plain why.

And it depends on the river, The Olentangy River through Columbus, probably not. The Tuscarawas River, however, is probably safe in most parts.

I don't know much about ballet, I understand that some of the practices do amount to body modification (training to maintain En Pointe)

In short, I would allow kids to swim in a river before would send them to ballet and I would encourage them to play soccer or tennis rather than American Football

re: #15 Bob Levin

The history of surgery isn't the issue. Modern, trained medical professionals are infinitely more qualified to conduct any medical procedure than the equivalent of a village shaman.

re: #17 kreyagg

Actually there are sound reasons to prohibit children from playing American Football, I think recent studies about the long term effects of concussions should make it plain why.

Yes, I know. Not just football, but every other contact sport. And there's a lot more harm. So, you do support banning contact sports for kids?

And it depends on the river, The Olentangy River through Columbus, probably not. The Tuscarawas River, however, is probably safe in most parts.

Nope. They all carry amoebas and other infectious agents. Sorry.

I don't know much about ballet, I understand that some of the practices do amount to body modification (training to maintain En Pointe)

Ballet is incredibly damaging to the body.

In short, I would allow kids to swim in a river before would send them to ballet and I would encourage them to play soccer or tennis rather than American Football

You get concussions in soccer, too, from heading the ball, sorry.

So do you want all these things banned?

re: #18 kreyagg

The history of surgery isn't the issue. Modern, trained medical professionals are infinitely more qualified to conduct any medical procedure than the equivalent of a village shaman.

Do you think midwives are the equivalent of a village shaman?

re: #18 kreyagg

Okay, I say the history of surgery is the issue. Stalemate? And define Shamanism.

Oh, let me help.

I've been to plenty of Brises [sp?]--and they don't go like that. I've also had some surgical procedures, and they are closer to the Brisim [?]. First--sterilize, second--administer anesthetic (wine), perform the procedure with properly sterilized and high quality equipment. Takes a second, less usually. And the Mohel usually has quite a bit more experience with the procedure than a doctor--making him more qualified. Because in surgery, experience matters a great deal.

I think you're trying to force a square peg into a round hole.

You have a better chance of getting hit by lightning on the equinox of years ending in 7 than you do of dying from circumcision of Jewish, Muslim or pagan religious practice.

re: #22 researchok

No, that's not true. People die from infections during circumcision at a higher rate than that. But that's because of unsterile conditions, not the circumcision itself.

re: #1 Saint Rush, Martyr of Lower Wingnuttia

Note: it was not from a general act of circumcision, but from the particular procedure - the "oral suction" of the wound. This is not a standard procedure among religious Jews in this day and age and should be prohibited, as both icky and dangerous. But the problem here is not with circumcision as such.

I'm against circumcision generally - unless it has the informed consent of the individual concerned or if there is some pressing medical need - but this version of the procedure (with the oral sucking - WTF?) needs to be banned ASAP. There's no reasonable defence for this disgustingly creepy and obviously dangerous practice.

re: #24 Jimmah

It's old news too. They should've done it years ago.

[Link: www.nytimes.com...]

[Link: www.jewishjournal.com...]

[Link: pediatrics.aappublications.org...]

re: #24 Jimmah

Are you also against football, et al. for kids?

re: #25 Saint Rush, Martyr of Lower Wingnuttia

I'm surprised it's not banned, if it's really not.

Yuck.

re: #27 Obdicut

A lot of fundie Rabbis insist that the practice is a necessary religious ritual.

re: #28 Saint Rush, Martyr of Lower Wingnuttia

A lot of fundie Rabbis insist that the practice is a necessary religious ritual.

Well, it's an entirely different scale of dangerous to have oral contact with an open wound.

That's like playing American football without padding or helmets.

Ah, and can we actually do something about idiot parents who buy their kids boxing gloves and let them hit each other? Boxing gloves don't make it fucking safer. They make it more dangerous.

/pet peeve.

re: #29 Obdicut

It's one more case where religious freedom should be limited by secular considerations.

re: #26 Obdicut

Are you also against football, et al. for kids?

No. I think there's a huge difference between playing football and having some regious nut suck your recently sliced penis without your approval or even knowledge,

re: #32 Jimmah

Obdi is opposed to this procedure. He meant your general anti-circ stance.

re: #32 Jimmah

I'm not talking about that, though.

I'm talking about circumcision in general.

re: #33 Saint Rush, Martyr of Lower Wingnuttia

Obdi is opposed to this procedute. He meant your general anti-circ stance.

Ah Ok. In that case my reply is

No. I think there's a huge difference between playing football and having a bodypart removed without your approval or even knowledge,

re: #35 Jimmah

Of course there's a difference, but I'm asking what it is. I'm not sure why there's this weird horror with 'removal'. It's oddly primitive to me. Playing football, for any length of time, or, dancing, definitely, you reshape your damn bones. Dancers generally aspire to a very unhealthy weight, too, and it's condoned. And many, many kids play sports just 'cuz their parents told 'em they should. It's not consensual, it's a parent telling a kid what to do.

I don't get why impacted bones, permanent damage is somehow better than the surgical removal of a flap of skin in a way actually recommended by the UN to help control HIV.

[Link: www.un.org...]

re: #36 Obdicut

Of course there's a difference, but I'm asking what it is.

If you can't see the difference, you have a cognitive issue that in all honesty I do not feel qualified to help you with.

I'll give you a hint though. Kids who get into football or ballet are at least aware of what they are getting into and at some level are giving consent.

re: #36 Obdicut

OK, I'll be the devil's advocate for a bit: should parents be allowed to tattoo their infants?

re: #36 Obdicut

many kids play sports just 'cuz their parents told 'em they should. It's not consensual, it's a parent telling a kid what to do.

As a kid, I was told to play football. I told them to fuck off. See the difference?

re: #39 Jimmah

As a kid, I was told to play football. I told them to fuck off. See the difference?

Nope. most kids can't. They're not psychologically able to do it. Pretending kids are adults is dumb.

re: #38 Saint Rush, Martyr of Lower Wingnuttia

How heavily? I'd say there's a difference in doing something that externally marks someone in a highly visible way. I don't know of any traditions that tattoo at birth, but I'd say aside from the face I wouldn't really have a problem with it.

We don't really get to decide what we look like anyway, so it doesn't seem to matter much, as long as we're not deformed.

re: #37 Jimmah

If you can't see the difference, you have a cognitive issue that in all honesty I do not feel qualified to help you with.

No, I see there's a difference, but I honestly think that we let kids play football is worse.

I'll give you a hint though. Kids who get into football or ballet are at least aware of what they are getting into and at some level are giving consent.

Wow, that's such a fantasyland answer. It's funny you'd go the 'cognitive deficit' route and then pretend that you don't know how many kids get pressured into doing things by their parents?

Especially when they start the kids out at like six, eight? Sheesh. Your parents are god at that point.

re: #41 Obdicut

[devil's advocate]Why should it matter how heavily? It's the parent's will. If they want to tattoo a cross on the face because their religion dictates them, shouldn't they be able to do so?

You might argue that society's reaction should be taken into account by the laws in order to spare children from humiliation. But then shouldn't the society's reaction be taken into account in what views are instilled in the child? E.g. teaching the child creationist nonsense will make him a laughingstock in certain parts of the world.[/devil's advocate]

re: #41 Obdicut

We don't really get to decide what we look like anyway, so it doesn't seem to matter much, as long as we're not deformed.

Well thats very much a big part of the issue - what constitutes a deformity or damage? I think that the removalof the foreskin is damaging in the same way that removal of part of a woman's sexual eqipment is damaging (although not necessarily to the same degree as its female equivalent).

I realise that this is not something that I could ever get most American guys or American women to admit to. I'm tilting at windmills in this environment so I'll leave this argument for now.

re: #43 Saint Rush, Martyr of Lower Wingnuttia

[devil's advocate]Why should it matter how heavily?

Because if you mark someone in a way that it can't possible be noticed, then it marks them, makes them socially identify in a way that you created. It's kind of tribal. In a way, making kids dress in certain ways does this, and I always feel dubious about that being forced on kids but it'd be impossible to stop so it's more one of those "I wish" things.

There isn't really any easy ethical way to deal with the whole parents thing in the first place. I mean, why the hell should these two random-ass people get to take charge of this kid? The real-world answers being: because nobody else, in general, will want to, and because they, biologically will. But that doesn't mean you can't look at some people-- alcoholics-- and say "Damn, there's going to be some shitty parenting there." But do we take kids away from all alcoholics? All drug-abusers of any kind? That's a whole lot of kids away from their families now.

And it quickly gets very racial. One of the problems that can quickly crop up with something like this is that you're throwing an entire ethnicity in jail for being a bad culture, basically. The British ran into this a lot when they were empire-making.

re: #44 Jimmah

Well thats very much a big part of the issue - what constitutes a deformity or damage? I think that the removalof the foreskin is damaging in the same way that removal of part of a woman's sexual eqipment is damaging (although not necessarily to the same degree as its female equivalent).

it's not in the least bit to the same degree, and it insultingly diminishes female genital mutilation for you to compare them.

As well as tells kids that have been circumcised that they should feel deformed and damaged.

I realise that this is not something that I could ever get most American guys or American women to admit to. I'm tilting at windmills in this environment so I'll leave this argument for now.

Your argument has, so far, sucked. Pretending that kids can say fuck off to their parents is just dumb. I don't know if most, but I know many kids that couldn't possibly deny their parents almost anything, especially at age six.

That pretense-- that kids can say fuck off to their parents-- is a dangerous one.

re: #42 Obdicut

Wow, that's such a fantasyland answer.

Sorry, but if you think a seven year old kid has no more ability to object to something he doesn't like than a newly born baby then you are the one who is in fantasyland. My parents suggested circumcision to me when I was seven (they had read that it was the 'healthy option' in , I believe, 'The Reader's Digest') and I objected - strenuously - and they backed down. You might argue that not all seven year olds are capable of such objections but I guarantee you that no babies are.

re: #47 Jimmah

Sorry, but if you think a seven year old kid has no more ability to object to something he doesn't like than a newly born baby then you are the one who is in fantasyland. My parents suggested circumcision to me when I was seven (they had read that it was the 'healthy option' in , I believe, 'The Reader's Digest') and I objected - strenuously - and they backed down. You might argue that not all seven year olds are capable of such objections but I guarantee you that no babies are.

Did I say 'no more ability'?

No, I didn't. so deal with what I'm actually saying.

Are you honestly saying that you don't acknowledge that many kids-- who are not you-- will say yes to whatever their parents ask them to do at seven? If they tell them it's very important to them?

Parents pressure kids into doing things all the time. Using your own anecdotal "I refused at seven" account is exactly that-- an anecdote, which you should know better than to proffer as evidence.

At the age of seven, I personally had difficulty saying no to any adult, which is how I got fucking physically and sexually abused. Many kids cannot say no to their parents or to many other adults, and pretending they can is dangerous as hell.

This isn't a tattoo across the face or football.

This is a religious practice that goes back over 4000 years.

I have been to hundreds of circumcisions in my life. I have seen this in 5 different countries and three different continents Every single one was performed by an MD who also happened to be a Mohel. I have never seen the practice of the "oral suction" of the wound even once.

Again, this practice goes back over 4000 years.

re: #49 Buck

How long it goes back is completely immaterial.

re: #50 Obdicut

How long it goes back is completely immaterial.

That is your opinion. You can say what ever you want.

However when people are comparing it to religious practices that don't even exist, (like should parents be allowed to tattoo their infants) I say that if they can get a popular religion and get parents to do so for even 1000 years, then it might be legit.

I think it is very material.

re: #51 Buck

There may very well be people who tattoo infants at birth. It's a human sorta thing.

I say that if they can get a popular religion and get parents to do so for even 1000 years, then it might be legit.

You realize that's a defense of all kinds of shit, like female genital mutilation, right?

re: #52 Obdicut

not to mention chattel slavery, animal and human sacrifice, institutionalized misogyny, and antisemitism.

Buck, does nearly two thousand years of christians teaching their children that Jews are guilty of Deicide make it a legitimate belief? That is an amazingly stupid line of reasoning.

re: #52 Obdicut

There may very well be people who tattoo infants at birth. It's a human sorta thing.

You realize that's a defense of all kinds of shit, like female genital mutilation, right?

No. There is NO RELIGION that advocates female genital mutilation.

re: #53 kreyagg

not to mention chattel slavery, animal and human sacrifice, institutionalized misogyny, and antisemitism.

Buck, does nearly two thousand years of christians teaching their children that Jews are guilty of Deicide make it a legitimate belief? That is an amazingly stupid line of reasoning.

The Church has reversed that line of thought many many years ago.

So the Church does not teach that. Not a real example.

Amazingly stupid argument fail

re: #52 Obdicut

AND more importantly female genital mutilation is NOTHING like circumcision.

re: #54 Buck

No. There is NO RELIGION that advocates female genital mutilation.

Yes, there are.

re: #56 Buck

AND more importantly female genital mutilation is NOTHING like circumcision.

Which is what I said, above.

Also, why would a religion endorsing something for 2000 years be more important or valid than a culture, or whatever else, doing it for 2000 years?

re: #55 Buck

The Church has reversed that line of thought many many years ago.

So the Church does not teach that. Not a real example.

Amazingly stupid argument fail

I'm sorry, but "christ killers" is still a current epithet. Christian white nationalists still hold and pass on those beliefs.

Deicide and Blood Libel don't belong solely to the Catholic Church.

re: #57 Obdicut

Yes, there are.

You say so, but there actually isn't.

re: #51 Buck

That is your opinion. You can say what ever you want.

However when people are comparing it to religious practices that don't even exist, (like should parents be allowed to tattoo their infants) I say that if they can get a popular religion and get parents to do so for even 1000 years, then it might be legit.

I think it is very material.

No, it isn't.

re: #60 kreyagg

I'm sorry, but "christ killers" is still a current epithet. Christian white nationalists still hold and pass on those beliefs.

Deicide and Blood Libel don't belong solely to the Catholic Church.

Again, you can find individuals and small groups. That does not compare to a religion that has the same practises for thousands of years, and millions of followers. You said "christians teaching their children", if you meant a small group of individuals, then you were not using an example of an organized religion. So you were not countering my statement.

re: #54 Buck

No. There is NO RELIGION that advocates female genital mutilation.

It doesn't actually matter what a religion advocates or not. A bad practice is not excused by religious requirements, which is why from a logical standpoint it is immaterial whether a bad practice is traditional or not.

Also, you're missing the point. As a devil's advocate I was probing Obdi's argument about the parents' rights over the body of their children. This is not directly about circumcision, but about the logical argument he was employing.

re: #62 Creeping Diversity

No, it isn't.

Yes it is. I even explain why. All you (and Obdicut) do is say "no". That is not an argument, it is just a contradiction.

However if you think that "Well they let kids play football" is a better defence to circumcision, enjoy.

re: #65 Buck

Yes it is. I even explain why. All you (and Obdicut) do is say "no". That is not an argument, it is just a contradiction.

However if you think that "Well they let kids play football" is a better defence to circumcision, enjoy.

What you haven't even attempted to prove we certainly can just dismiss.

Tattooing of adolescent m/f children for religious purposes:

[Link: news.nationalgeographic.com...]

Image: png_tattoos1.jpg

re: #67 Decatur Deb

The article you refer to says this practice is fading.

Also, #38 referred to infants.

However, what difference does that make? A small group (tribe) in Borneo?
You would compare that to a Jewish tradition that is done by millions of Jews all over the world for thousands of years?

Yes, if there were a Borneo tribe in New Jersey that wanted to be able to give tattoos to their children for religious reasons it might be relevant. However it is just not happening. And even if it was, it would not be something I would try and stop.

re: #68 Buck

It doesn't really matter how many people for how many years have been doing something. Only the substance of the act matters. If the act is harmful, it should be stopped regardless of how many people do it or have been doing it.

(Again, this is a general principle and does not refer specifically to circumcision. Obviously.)

Also, you can stop referring to #38, since it wasn't aimed at you. It was aimed at the particular argument which you don't even employ.

re: #69 Creeping Diversity

It doesn't really matter how many people for how many years have been doing something. Only the substance of the act matters. If the act is harmful, it should be stopped regardless of how many people do it or have been doing it.

But we are talking about circumcision. Your general statement is nice, but irrelevant. It is like saying a person should never jump from an airplane in flight. A nice general statement and does not specifically refer to parachute jumping.

My point is that by virtue of the thousands of years and millions of practitioners circumcision is NOT a harmful act.

re: #70 Buck

But we are talking about circumcision. Your general statement is nice, but irrelevant.

I don't see how it is irrelevant. It shows that an argument from religion is not logically sound.

My point is that by virtue of the thousands of years and millions of practitioners circumcision is NOT a harmful act.

Sorry, but if that was your point, you did everything in order to confuse everybody. You wrote:

This isn't a tattoo across the face or football.

This is a religious practice that goes back over 4000 years.

Your mention of tattoos was in reference to an earlier conversation that did not concern harm for health at all. Rather, it was about the limits of parental authority. Thus it was only possible to read your argument in light of this conversation. If you wanted to make an argument about health, you should have made an argument about health, without bringing up things from different spheres.

If your argument is solely about health, then it doesn't contradict anything I said in response to Obdi's argument.

I will say a couple of things about your new argument, though. First of all, it begs the question and is a non sequitur.

Second, it is refuted by known facts: millions of practitioners practice female genital mutilation for centuries, it doesn't make it not a harmful act. It's not a religious commandment, but a cultural quirk, but it doesn't make it any less widespread or ancient.

And no, don't even think of emplying tricks like saying that I compared FGM to male circumcision, since I obviously did not. I'm just showing that your argument in the form as you've presented it would allow for such practices. It's up to you to make your argument invincible to such attacks.

Another example is the very oral suction that is the initial topic of this thread and that has been a part of the circumcision ritual for centuries. It is in fact mentioned in the Talmud (Shabbath 133a, b) as one of 4 requirements of the circumcision ritual, and is reiterated in the rabbinic literature, incl. Rambam (see this book and this book). It is only in the 19th century that the questions about this practice were raised among the Orthodox Rabbis, i.e. there was no controversy over it until then. And even now there are thousands of Haredim that are subjected to metzitza each year in Israel alone.

By your logic then this practice is harmless too and should be allowed to be continued.

re: #71 Creeping Diversity

By your logic then this practice is harmless too and should be allowed to be continued.

Correct. That is exactly what I am saying. If the parents really want to have that part of the religious practice done, then they will do it (allowed or not). Let me repeat the key part, religious practice.

As I stated, it is NOT at all widespread or common.

My point about the comment about tattoo and football was to say that circumcision is not the same thing. I think I was very clear about that. I was saying that circumcision is not about parental authority. Again I think I was very clear about this.

re: #72 Buck

Then there was no need saying that tattoos are not exactly like circumcision, since no one here implied that they are.

You also ignored that your argument allows for FGM.

If your argument is solely about health, then it doesn't contradict anything I said in response to Obdi's argument.

How you can think that my point was "solely about health" I have no clue.

I said "This is a religious practice that goes back over 4000 years."

I repeated it twice in my initial post.

That is my point. You (and Obdicut) seem to me to think that 4000 years of religious tradition is irrelevant. I obviously disagree.

re: #73 Creeping Diversity

Then there was no need saying that tattoos are not exactly like circumcision, since no one here implied that they are.

You also ignored that your argument allows for FGM.

NO I certainly did not. You admit there is no religion that calls for FGM. That was my point.

I really could not have been more clear. You are giving too much weight to your argument that the religious side of this is meaningless, or irrelevant.

re: #74 Buck

How you can think that my point was "solely about health" I have no clue.

I said "This is a religious practice that goes back over 4000 years."

I repeated it twice in my initial post.

That is my point. You (and Obdicut) seem to me to think that 4000 years of religious tradition is irrelevant. I obviously disagree.

Absence of what harm other than harm to health was your argument demonstrating, then?

And to repeat, it doesn't matter how old or widespread some rite is - if it is established that it is harmful for health, it should be outlawed. It is in this sense that those whatever many years are irrelevant.

You may say that they are relevant in that they show by themselves that a rite is harmless, however that would be a separate argument. If true, it would simply mean that there won't be cases in which an old and popular rite is harmful and thus none of them should be outlawed. It would still be compatible with what I said.

The problem is that your argument is not necessarily true. It is a logical non sequitur - harmlessness does not follow from age and popularity.

re: #75 Buck

Then your argument becomes arbitrary, since there is no difference in substance between a religious custom that is practiced for centuries by many people, and a cultural custom that is practiced for centuries by many people.

You will have to either explicitly defend exclusion of cultural customs from your argument, or admit them, including FGM.

re: #76 Creeping Diversity

harmlessness does not follow from age and popularity.

Actually it does. This is why religions that would practice jumping off a cliff to your death would be unpopular and would not last thousands of years.

Get it? If circumcision was harmful it would not have lasted this long and be this popular.

You keep stating that:

since there is no difference in substance between a religious custom that is practiced for centuries by many people, and a cultural custom that is practiced for centuries by many people.

The problem is that your argument is not necessarily true.

I disagree with it (as I have stated multiple times). You keep standing on it.

re: #78 Buck

Actually it doesn't, as I've shown with the reference to FGM. Any objection that it is not a religious practice are empty until you show the actual difference.

re: #79 Creeping Diversity

I have shown the actual difference. You just seem to not want to accept it. That is fine. You can think what you want. You seem to want to be ignorant of the difference between an organized and respected long standing religion like Judaism and a cultural practice which has at its source an illogical and irrational concept. Unlike Jewish tradition and practice FGM continues today to be practised by people ignorant of any real reason for it. Unlike an organized and respected religion like Judaism, there are many different groups using FGM with multiple different excuses. Mostly it is a subjugation of women, which is also a long held tradition, but not an organized and respected religious practice.

FGM is commonly practised today simply as barbaric rejection of the modern world. Unlike Jewish tradition and practice.

Now I could go on for pages and pages, listing all the different cultural oddities and why they are not the same thing as the practices and traditions of an organized and respected long standing religion like Judaism. However it clearly would be a waste of time. You have ignored what I have written, or simply dismissed it out of hand.

I really have no time for that sort of behaviour.

re: #80 Buck

Haven't you claimed to be an atheist before?

re: #81 Obdicut

Haven't you claimed to be an atheist before?

Yes, I am an atheist. That does not preclude me from defending religious freedom.

I don't need my meat to be kosher, but I would defend that practise with my last breath.

re: #80 Buck

Sorry, Buck, but asserting that there is a difference and showing that there is one are two different things. You haven't actually shown that there is any difference between equally popular and widespread cultural and religious traditions. Well, at least now you have tried, but before this comment all you did was assert.

Saying that the cultural traditions originated from an "illogical and irrational concept" doesn't remove from you the burden of proving that religious traditions did not originate from illogical and irrational concepts. I can just as easily say that religious traditions originate from illogical and irrational concepts.

You'll have to do better than that.

re: #82 Buck

So, can you explain how a religious practice is different from a cultural practice yet?

There's no actual difference between 'religion' and 'culture'. Religion tends to be a repository of culture.

As an atheist, you've got to recognize that, right? What difference is there between a cultural practice and a religious one?

There are tons and tons of religious practices that have lasted for thousands of years that have obviously irrational roots.

I mean, aside from, you know, the religion itself, which has irrational roots.

re: #85 Obdicut

Yeah, and it's not like it's really even an insult to state so. I mean, religious practices don't have to be rational, just by definition.

I think I explained the difference as best as I can in #80.

You can pick apart one of the arguments, but I made multiple.

You can say that circumcision has "obviously irrational roots", but I would say that a statement like that would come from your own obvious ignorance and obvious intolerance.

Again, perhaps your atheism makes you intolerant of religious faith and belief. As I have stated, it is not so with me.

re: #86 Creeping Diversity

This is honestly the first time I"ve ever heard religious practices defended as having rational foundations.

Often, like with Jewish dietary laws, they have rational outcomes, but irrational foundations.

re: #87 Buck

Circumcision is a great thing to practice for hygiene, and that's a very rational reason to do it.

Doing it because god wants you to is not a rational reason.

Wouldn't you agree?

re: #88 Obdicut

And what do you think the origin of Jewish dietary laws is?

re: #90 Buck

And what do you think the origin of Jewish dietary laws is?

The real origin? That if you follow them, you have better health than you would otherwise, if you're living in bronze-age conditions in the Levant.

These days, that's no longer true, and following kosher laws makes nutrition more problematic than it would be otherwise.

So it's actually a pretty good example of how religious practice persists beyond the actual rational reason for it, right?

re: #87 Buck

I think I explained the difference as best as I can in #80.

You can pick apart one of the arguments, but I made multiple.

You can say that circumcision has "obviously irrational roots", but I would say that a statement like that would come from your own obvious ignorance and obvious intolerance.

Again, perhaps your atheism makes you intolerant of religious faith and belief. As I have stated, it is not so with me.

I haven't said anything about circumcision, though. It's not circumcision we argue about, but your flawed argument.

Saying that there is any difference in substance between cultural and religious tradition is begging the question.

Appeals to "respect" the religious tradition because they're, well, religious is an appeal to emotion.

Obviously, you don't show the same respect to cultural traditions, which makes you intolerant to other cultures, etc. etc.

Again, there isn't an argument that can be made against cultural traditions in general that can't be made about religious traditions in general. Which is why the only way to defend circumcision is not through some speculative general arguments about safety of religious rites, but as Obdi does, through appeal to the up-to-date medical information.

re: #89 Obdicut

Circumcision is a great thing to practice for hygiene, and that's a very rational reason to do it.

Doing it because god wants you to is not a rational reason.

Wouldn't you agree?

I don't think you have a good understanding of the origin of circumcision as it was originally applied to Abraham and the covenant.

re: #93 Buck

I don't think you have a good understanding of the origin of circumcision as it was originally applied to Abraham and the covenant.

Okay. That isn't the actual origin, though, because that's a myth. Right?

And sure, it's not that god wants you to, but that it's a sign of the agreement between god and the Israelites. What does that matter?

re: #91 Obdicut

The real origin? That if you follow them, you have better health than you would otherwise, if you're living in bronze-age conditions in the Levant.

These days, that's no longer true, and following kosher laws makes nutrition more problematic than it would be otherwise.

So it's actually a pretty good example of how religious practice persists beyond the actual rational reason for it, right?

I think you are wrong about the origin. Better health? You think that they knew about germs back then? How would don't seeth a kid in its mothers milk be about health?

Basically the rules of Kashruth are started in the five books of Moses. Long before the advantages to health were known.

re: #95 Buck

I don't think you're understanding what I"m saying. I'm not trying to pinpoint the exact way the rule was come up with, but the origin of it-- how it came to be followed. And that is because the people who followed it survived at a greater rate than those that didn't.

There are, mixed in with the good ones, some nutty ones that don't have any benefit, it's true. But taken as a whole, they're healthy.

I'm sorry, I thought you were arguing that these were coming from a rational source. You know appear to be arguing against your previous premise.

The obvious other reason of the kosher laws is simply as a cultural touch-stone: those that follow this practice are Us.

Which is why it's relatively easy to see that cultural and religion are basically the same thing.

re: #94 Obdicut

Okay. That isn't the actual origin, though, because that's a myth. Right?

And sure, it's not that god wants you to, but that it's a sign of the agreement between god and the Israelites. What does that matter?

You still don't get it. One command and one promise. A man defiantly made a decision about a single god (instead of the multiple gods that was popular with everyone else). You don't think that is a myth do you?

An illusion? Maybe. However one that started a religion that today has survived with the same tradition 4000 years later.

Now maybe it makes you feel better to think he was just hearing voices, or making stuff up. However Abraham says that at this time there is only one commandment and one promise. And they were not the Israelites yet. They weren't even the Hebrews.

My point is that you don't really know the origins. So to say they are illogical and irrational is really showing your ignorance.

re: #97 Obdicut

Religious traditions are simply a subset of cultural traditions.

And it seems obvious that the kashrut laws were not simply invented when they were written down in the Torah between 900-500 B.C.E., but, like many other things, were simply taken from the already existing culture.

re: #98 Buck

You still don't get it. One command and one promise. A man defiantly made a decision about a single god (instead of the multiple gods that was popular with everyone else). You don't think that is a myth do you?

Huh? You've lost me. I don't think there was an actual Abraham, no. And I don't understand why we're having a discussion about the mythical covenant.

An illusion? Maybe. However one that started a religion that today has survived with the same tradition 4000 years later.

You're supposed to be an atheist. So it's not 'maybe'. It's 'yes'.

Now maybe it makes you feel better to think he was just hearing voices, or making stuff up.

Um, what do you think he was doing, fellow atheist?

My point is that you don't really know the origins. So to say they are illogical and irrational is really showing your ignorance.

THat's nice, Buck. I think you've kind of lost track of what you're saying. You now appear to be making a religious argument, while claiming to be an atheist.

Are you sure you're an atheist?

I actually didn't know Buck is an atheist :) Why, I wonder?

re: #99 Creeping Diversity

it seems obvious

To you maybe. However you have never really studied it. So you are just guessing.

re: #102 Buck

Have you read anything by the wonderful Robert Alter?

This is a good one to start with.

[Link: www.amazon.com...]

re: #102 Buck

Sure, and it's a mighty good guess too. Unless, that is, you think that the guys who wrote the Pentateuch - whether it be under the king Josiah or around that time - simply invented the new rules out of the blue.

re: #101 Creeping Diversity

I actually didn't know Buck is an atheist :) Why, I wonder?

An atheist with a reverence for religion.

First one I ever met.

re: #100 Obdicut

I am sure.

I don't have to believe in god in order to believe that there was an origin to the religion.

I don't have to believe Christ was the son of god to believe he was in Nazareth.

I don't have to believe in god to have respect for religion.

To me it is your disrespect that exposes your intolerance.

re: #106 Buck

What disrespect have I shown, Buck? Please point it out, and be specific.

Again: Um, what do you think he was doing, fellow atheist?

If Abraham (for whom there is little evidence to show that he ever existed) wasn't just making things up, wasn't hearing voices, what was he doing?

re: #104 Creeping Diversity

Sure, and it's a mighty good guess too. Unless, that is, you think that the guys who wrote the Pentateuch - whether it be under the king Josiah or around that time - simply invented the new rules out of the blue.

You think they wrote down what they were making up at the time? Or did they learn it orally, handed down for centuries. Was kashruth practised only after "the guys" wrote it?

re: #108 Buck

Wow. You exactly misunderstood him. That takes some doing.

re: #108 Buck

You think they wrote down what they were making up at the time? Or did they learn it orally, handed down for centuries. Was kashruth practised only after "the guys" wrote it?

Isn't that what I wrote? Yes, the Pentateuch's numerous authors very likely did not invent the core of the dietary laws, but rather wrote down the rules that already existed in oral form (perhaps discarding some, adding some, modifying some).

re: #107 Obdicut

What disrespect have I shown, Buck? Please point it out, and be specific.

Again: Um, what do you think he was doing, fellow atheist?

If Abraham (for whom there is little evidence to show that he ever existed) wasn't just making things up, wasn't hearing voices, what was he doing?

Maybe he was hearing voices, OR maybe he was making it all up. I don't know. It doesn't matter. I am in awe that it could start there and grow just as he said it would. No matter if it was delusion or cunning plot.

Back to the subject, the one commandment and the one promise.

re: #111 Buck

Maybe he was hearing voices, OR maybe he was making it all up. I don't know. It doesn't matter. I am in awe that it could start there and grow just as he said it would. No matter if it was delusion or cunning plot.

Why are you certain he existed?

Back to the subject, the one commandment and the one promise.

That's not the subject, Buck. The subjects are:

1. Why you think that religion and culture are separate entities, which you haven't done anything to show.

2. Why you think religious practice has rational roots.

So far, you've actually done more to show religious practice has irrational roots than rational ones. Were you going to get around to showing a rational root at some point?

re: #110 Creeping Diversity

Isn't that what I wrote? Yes, the Pentateuch's numerous authors very likely did not invent the core of the dietary laws, but rather wrote down the rules that already existed in oral form (perhaps discarding some, adding some, modifying some).

OK, but those oral rules were not cultural rules. They were religious rules. They just were not in written form. It was NOT just a cultural to religious transformation. Every Jew knew them, studied them and understood the reasons for them.

re: #112 Obdicut

Why are you certain he existed?

That's not the subject, Buck. The subjects are:

1. Why you think that religion and culture are separate entities, which you haven't done anything to show.

2. Why you think religious practice has rational roots.

So far, you've actually done more to show religious practice has irrational roots than rational ones. Were you going to get around to showing a rational root at some point?

Sez you. I think I have explained that multiple times. You just keep dismissing my arguments.

Once again you are the debating opposition AND judge.

re: #114 Buck

Do you think that the Jewish practice of men covering the head (and please don't nitpick the actual goddamn rule) comes from a rational root, and, if so, can you explain what that root is?

re: #114 Buck

Can you also at least acknowledge Sergey in your vituperation, too?

I mean, of the people talking to you, you haven't convinced anyone you've even made an argument.

re: #113 Buck

OK, but those oral rules were not cultural rules. They were religious rules. They just were not in written form. It was NOT just a cultural to religious transformation. Every Jew knew them, studied them and understood the reasons for them.

First of all, they were cultural rules because religious traditions are a subset of cultural traditions. But if you want to say that these were never purely cultural rules outside of religion, you're welcome to try and show it. I don't know how you will manage this. I think this goes against common sense, because you're positing some sort of revelation in the deep past. I'm saying these rules "evolved" rather than being created ex nihilo.

I showed that you didn't know the roots of the two religious traditions that you used as examples.

If the rules of Kashruth started as a way to institutionalise a ban against cruelty to animals would that be rational to you? You think that all of the rules started with "God said so". You are wrong.

The head covering is to remind the man that there is a separation between him and the higher power. To be reminded, every day of your life, to be humble. To be reminded, every day of your life, of your place in the universe. There are a lot of people throughout history that could have used that reminder. Maybe there would have been less man on man oppression if everyone did that.

re: #117 Creeping Diversity

First of all, they were cultural rules because religious traditions are a subset of cultural traditions. But if you want to say that these were never purely cultural rules outside of religion, you're welcome to try and show it. I don't know how you will manage this. I think this goes against common sense, because you're positing some sort of revelation in the deep past. I'm saying these rules "evolved" rather than being created ex nihilo.

Right, and I am saying that in many cases, you are wrong. You call it common sense, however you don't really know.

re: #118 Buck

If the rules of Kashruth started as a way to institutionalise a ban against cruelty to animals would that be rational to you?

No, given how many of them have nothing to do with animals.

You think that all of the rules started with "God said so". You are wrong.

No, I don't. That was an obviously shortening of "because the religious rules dictate that it be so".

The head covering is to remind the man that there is a separation between him and the higher power.

What higher power, Buck? You don't believe in a higher power, remember?

To be reminded, every day of your life, to be humble. To be reminded, every day of your life, of your place in the universe.

Given that you're an atheist, you should believe that it's actually misinformation about your place in the universe, since you don't believe in a god, remember?

re: #119 Buck

Right, and I am saying that in many cases, you are wrong. You call it common sense, however you don't really know.

Oh, obviously I leave a small possibility that some guy who people thought was a prophet just instituted these dietary rules that never existed before. We can only speculate on this matter.

re: #106 Buck

By the way, Buck, you alleged I was showing disrespect. Are you planning on leaving that as yet another thing you just claim and fail to back up in any way, like your claim that Fluke lied to congress?

re: #120 Obdicut

Well, you would be wrong about Kashruth. It started with not cooking a kid in its mothers milk. It doesn't mean that other concepts evolved, but we are talking about the origin.

(Creeping Diversity, It isn't about speculation is it about study.)

I have explained so many times that my not believing in god does not mean I don't study and respect other people beliefs in their religion. That concept clearly eludes you. You don't recognize your disrespect, even as I point it out. You even said you thought I was the only "atheist with a reverence for religion". Reverence = respect.

I am off to make dinner for my family.

I am sure that anything you would say now has been covered earlier in one of my posts. Please just read the thread again if you have any questions for me. I am sure you will find the answer. Disagreeing with my answer does not make it invisible.

re: #123 Buck

What "study", Buck? Tell me what the historians say about the origin of those laws. THAT would be a result of the study.

re: #123 Buck

Well, you would be wrong about Kashruth. It started with not cooking a kid in its mothers milk. It doesn't mean that other concepts evolved, but we are talking about the origin.

How the hell do you think you know where it started? You said that these started in oral traditions that were passed down. So how do you know that was the first?

And how would that not be cruelty to animals? It's not about not cooking the kid alive, so what does it matter?

You don't recognize your disrespect, even as I point it out.

No, you don't point it out. I ask you to. you don't. Kind of how I asked you, over and over, to acknowledge that you were wrong when you said Fluke had lied to congress, but you refused to.

Reverence = respect.

No, reverence = reverence. Respect = respect.

re: #125 Creeping Diversity

What "study", Buck? Tell me what the historians say about the origin of those laws. THAT would be a result of the study.

I could tell you. I actually have already. However you need to study it for yourself in order to believe it. You have to study the whole thing. Not just a Google search or two. Yes historians have studied this.

The Jews have survived through so many millennia while other civilizations have declined and perished. It was these traditions and practices that were unique and held together for thousands of years.

re: #127 Buck

No, you don't get it. References to scholarly literature, please.

That is a huge request. I really don't see myself typing in 60 - 70 references to books you should read.

I would probably have you start with The Standard Jewish Encyclopaedia (Doubleday and company 1959).

But I can't really take the time right now to give you course of study for 4000 years.

re: #129 Buck

I don't need a study of the whole 4000 years. We were discussing a particular question: were the kashrut laws a cultural development or was there some kind of a religious revelation (not necessarily supernatural). I think it's not hard to pinpoint the scholarly literature about the origin of kashrut laws - if there is such.

Here's an attempted scholarly explanation, that relies on hypotheticals.

[Link: books.google.ru...]

I repeat: "However you need to study it for yourself in order to believe it. You have to study the whole thing. Not just a Google search or two. "

Regarding kashruth, I have explained that Moses related the phrase "You should not seeth a kid in its mothers milk". You don't have to believe in god or even religious revelation to believe in Moses.

This set the people on a path that meant that they should not be cruel to the animals they eat. The root of Kashruth is there. The animals are slaughtered in a humane way. Any animal that dies in pain is not kosher. Condemned is the practice of forcing premature deliveries in order to obtain fine skins or tender meat. (A practice that BTW is not outlawed in the US.)

It is not Kosher to use an animal or it's young as a beast of burden until the young are weaned.

Logical? Rational? Yes. Just cause God said so? Nope. This didn't start only when the five books of Moses were finally put to paper. In fact there was a religious reason NOT to write these down before they finally were.

The record of this goes back to when the Hebrews walked across the River Jordan and entered the promised land. When was it promised? When they agreed to circumcision. That was the one commandment, and the one promise.

I think that is pretty cool. However like I say you have to study the whole thing to really appreciate it. Everything that happened between Abraham and Moses, and yet there is a connection. The people repeated and recited the story of Abraham for a thousand years, only to actually fulfil his prediction against all odds.

Have I made the argument? Yes. Just because I didn't convince you and Obdicut doesn't mean I didn't make the argument. It just means I didn't change your mind. Not at all the same thing.

I guess what is missing is that there were no cultures in the area that observed anything close to kashruth. The people around them didn't observe things like that. In fact they often found these Jews strange in their practices. As the others were stabbing with spears, clubbing, shooting arrows into their food, the Jews were domesticating and raising their food for ritual a slaughter that killed the animal instantly.

re: #132 Buck

Buck, the problem with your reasoning is that you criticize us for speculation, but you speculate yourself. All those things you've stated are not established facts, but hypotheses.

In fact, in the scholarly literature I checked out I do not see most historians and biblical scholars assuming historicity of early Biblical personages like Moses or Abraham, or that Moses really had anything to do with the Torah. The general consensus is that the Torah is a conglomerate of various sources by different authors. E.g. the book of Deuteronomy was created during king Josiah's reign, according to most scholars. You might argue that it was just written down at that moment, and actually originated with Moses, but that's just an assumption.

re: #134 Creeping Diversity

You might argue that it was just written down at that moment, and actually originated with Moses, but that's just an assumption.

No it is not. This is why I say you have to study the whole thing.

You can't do this with a few google searches.

re: #135 Buck

No it is not. This is why I say you have to study the whole thing.

You can't do this with a few google searches.

I didn't do it with a few google searches, Buck. And I would suggest you read the modern scholarly Biblical commentaries.

You link in #131 is a google search. However even it admits to a practical and logical reasoning to Kashruth.

As if really matters if it was Abraham, Moses or a 500 BC King of Judea.

You and Obdicut are just another couple of jokers who think that Google makes them an expert on everything.

You don't have a clue.

re: #137 Buck

It's not a mere "google search". It's a link to a scholarly book on Google Books. Moreover, you're confusing things here. I don't pretend to know the intricacies of scholarly opinion on the laws of kashrut, which is why I first asked you, and when it became clear that you know nothing, I then went searching myself.

But I did read my share of literature on the theories of composition of the Bible, and specifically the Pentateuch, which is a much more general topic, and I know that modern scholars do not assume the existence of Moses or any connection between him and the five books.

You're obviously ignorant of scholarship.

What a joke. You read your share of literature on the theories of composition of the Bible that you found on the internet.

Many of the towns (villages, really) and rulers (he fights against 5 kings to save his nephew, Lot) that are mentioned in conjunction with Abrahams story are easy enough to trace back via archeology. Attempts have been made to disprove his existence but the places referenced could not have been known in the later times (before the archaeology) when you "claim" the Torah was written.

re: #139 Buck

No, moron. I never said I found them on the internet.

And in any case, a book doesn't become any less of a book just because it has been scanned.

re: #139 Buck

Why would there be an assumption that he actually existed? That's not how the scholarship of history works.

re: #137 Buck

However even it admits to a practical and logical reasoning to Kashruth.

Can you explain how not seething a kid in its mother's milk is practical and/or rational? You said it prevents animal cruelty, but that doesn't make much sense, since seething the kid in the milk from another animal would amount to the same thing-- and the kid is dead at that point anyway, right?

re: #142 Obdicut

Sure I can explain. You very often see things only in absolute literals.

That is not the way to read these texts.

To Moses cooking any meat in milk is the same thing. It was a cruel thing to do. It represented an act that was cruel.

Clearly it could never have been that there are bacteria in unpasteurized milk, and that it was a dangerous thing to do, as that was not discovered for thousands of years

re: #143 Buck

Sure I can explain. You very often see things only in absolute literals.

That is not the way to read these texts.

To Moses cooking any meat in milk is the same thing. It was a cruel thing to do. It represented an act that was cruel.

Clearly it could never have been that there are bacteria in unpasteurized milk, and that it was a dangerous thing to do, as that was not discovered for thousands of years

Actually, just like anybody else, you have not the slightest idea of how the commandment really originated. You're simply offering yours (or someone else's) opinion on this issue.

re: #143 Buck

To Moses cooking any meat in milk is the same thing. It was a cruel thing to do. It represented an act that was cruel.

Why was it cruel, though? That's what I'm asking you. In what way was it animal cruelty?

Clearly it could never have been that there are bacteria in unpasteurized milk, and that it was a dangerous thing to do, as that was not discovered for thousands of years

You don't actually have to discover the actual science behind something in order to have it as a good practice, Buck. I'm not sure why you think you do. Penicillin-- or rather, bread molds-- were used in ancient times to treat infections, even though they had no clue why they worked.

re: #145 Obdicut

Why was it cruel, though?

That is why I said you very often see things only in absolute literals.

I am sorry you can't see it. I tried to explain.

re: #144 Lenin's Mummy

Actually, just like anybody else, you have not the slightest idea of how the commandment really originated. You're simply offering yours (or someone else's) opinion on this issue.

So you say.

re: #146 Buck

That is why I said you very often see things only in absolute literals.

I am sorry you can't see it. I tried to explain.

No, you didn't.

So, you're saying it's not literally animal cruelty. Can you explain how it's figurative animal cruelty?

Do you understand that you don't have to actually understand the science behind something to use it? Hell, the entire history of metallurgy is not understand what the hell is going on, but still making amazing advances.

re: #147 Buck

So you say.

Can you explain why you start from the ahistorical assumption Abraham existed, rather than starting out from a neutral position?

I already answered both of these questions. You might not like the answer, or understand it, but I did answer.

"a historical assumption Abraham existed"

I answered that in #139. You read that post, you even downdinged it.

"how it's figurative animal cruelty?"

I answered that in #143. As it is one of the only posts you didn't downding, I will repeat the important part: It represented an act that was cruel.

re: #150 Buck

The existence of towns doesn't prove the existence of Abraham. That's not an explanation of why you give credence to Abraham's existence.

I answered that in #143. As it is one of the only posts you didn't downding, I will repeat the important part: It represented an act that was cruel.

How was it cruel. Don't just reassert that it was cruel. What was cruel about the act? Explain it. Don't just re-assert that it was cruel.

re: #148 Obdicut

Do you understand that you don't have to actually understand the science behind something to use it?

Try and follow the idea that the Hebrews were the only ones to do so. It was something that actually separated them. It made their lives more difficult.

Anyway, I don't really care if I convince you. If you don't want to see the incredible events in your peoples history, you just wont.

re: #151 Obdicut

The existence of towns doesn't prove the existence of Abraham. That's not an explanation of why you give credence to Abraham's existence.

Yes it is.

How was it cruel. Don't just reassert that it was cruel. What was cruel about the act? Explain it. Don't just re-assert that it was cruel.

I didn't just "re-assert that it was cruel."

re: #152 Buck

Try and follow the idea that the Hebrews were the only ones to do so.

Okay. I'm following that. How is that supposed to connect to your larger argument?

Anyway, I don't really care if I convince you. If you don't want to see the incredible events in your peoples history, you just wont.

Ah yes, the "You're not a good Jew" swipe. Just can't help yourself.

Do you give complete credence to every event mentioned in the Torah?

re: #154 Obdicut

Ah yes, the "You're not a good Jew" swipe. Just can't help yourself.

That is not what I said.

Do you give complete credence to every event mentioned in the Torah?

Of course not. I never said that I did. Do you discount everything in the bible as absolutely a myth?

re: #153 Buck

Yes it is.

How is it? Why isn't it evidence that someone who knew about the existence of those towns created the legend of Abraham?

I mean, I'm even accepting your claim about the towns, which you've simply asserted. How does the knowledge of the towns translate to "Abraham was real"?

I didn't just "re-assert that it was cruel."

Yes, you did. I asked how it was cruel, and you said:

It represented an act that was cruel.

What was cruel about the act?

re: #147 Buck

So you say.

Of course I say it. That's tautology. You still don't actually know the origin of this commandment, and neither do scholars. There are at least 4 hypotheses/interpretations regarding these verses: compassion; possible Canaanite ritual involving boiling kid in milk (thus forbidden because of idolatry); it's not boiling in milk but cooking in fat (and thus prohibition of killing the mother together with the kid); it's not boiling in milk, but boiling of a suckling kid (prohibition of using an "early" kid for food). None of these are proven.

You're ignorant of this, of course.

re: #155 Buck

Of course not. I never said that I did. Do you discount everything in the bible as absolutely a myth?

Nope. I'm not sure why you're referring to the bible, though.

So, why-- contrary to the vast majority of biblical scholars-- do you accept Abraham as a historical entity? Do you, for example, believe that he lived to be 127 years old?

re: #158 Obdicut

Nope. I'm not sure why you're referring to the bible, though.

Bible, Torah...don't nit pick.

So, why-- contrary to the vast majority of biblical scholars-- do you accept Abraham as a historical entity? Do you, for example, believe that he lived to be 127 years old?

I like your use of vast majority of biblical scholars right after nit picking my use of the word bible.

Knowing that the calendar that uses the term year and is 365 days didn't exist back then, how important is the number 127? Maybe that was just a high number and just really meant he lived a really long time. You know like 11 is in terms of amplifier volume?

re: #159 Buck

I like your use of vast majority of biblical scholars right after nit picking my use of the word bible.

Why?

Knowing that the calendar that uses the term year and is 365 days didn't exist back then, how important is the number 127? Maybe that was just a high number and just really meant he lived a really long time. You know like 11 is in terms of amplifier volume?

So that's a no, right?

So, how do you separate the ahistorical things related about Abraham from the historical ones?

Which scholars do you think have it right? Can you name anyone?

Most of my information about the historicity of the Bible comes from Professor Robert Alter, of the University of California, Berkeley.

Which sources are you drawing from?

re: #158 Obdicut

Do you, for example, believe that he lived to be 127 years old?

How funny you are to keep going all literal again.

re: #161 Buck

How funny you are to keep going all literal again.

Do you believe in a figurative Abraham, or a literal one?

re: #160 Obdicut

Most of my information about the historicity of the Bible comes from Professor Robert Alter, of the University of California, Berkeley.

Which sources are you drawing from?

I can't give you everything, because as I mentioned it would take much too long, but I will give you two.

I mentioned archaeology. So one example would be William F. Albright.
Reading multiple books like Archaeology and Bible History, Joseph Free and Howard Vos.

I was turned onto the archaeology side of all this early (1970's) when I was living in Israel. Recently again when my cousin produced a TV show called the Naked Archaeologist.

re: #157 Lenin's Mummy

Of course I say it. That's tautology. You still don't actually know the origin of this commandment, and neither do scholars. There are at least 4 hypotheses: compassion; possible Canaanite ritual involving boiling kid in milk; it's not boiling in milk but cooking in fat; it's not boiling in milk, but boiling of a suckling kid. None of these are proven.

You're ignorant of this, of course.

Ya, again you say so. No one know anything. Got it.

re: #163 Buck

Albright is very out of date, you know, and most of his stuff has been overturned by modern research. Have you read anything that followed him?

I'm not familiar with Free and Vos, but some quick search shows they seem to be rather fringe scholars, and, like Albright, appear to be evangelical Christians. Free appears to have written the book with the explicit goal of establishing the historicity of the bible, rather than starting from a neutral position.

Have you read any Jewish scholars?

re: #163 Buck

Reading multiple books like Archaeology and Bible History, Joseph Free and Howard Vos.

Oh great, a Christian-slanted book by a self-confessed Biblical inerrantist. It's basically an apologetic work. Grrreat. He even writes that God created man several thousand years ago. Oh, Buck, Buck. Such are your "scholars".

re: #165 Buck

Ya, again you say so. No one know anything. Got it.

Of course you don't. And I have demonstrated it above.

re: #166 Obdicut

I must say I expected something this pathetic from Buck when he referenced above a 1959(!) encyclopedia(!).

re: #167 Lenin's Mummy

Albright, although obviously biased, was a great scholar. His conclusions were often, shall we say, hopeful, and his methods rather narrative, but he inspired many students-- the irony being that many of those students discovered things that overturned his theories.

A 1950 review of Free's book:

[Link: int.sagepub.com...]

The book should really be
titled: a defense of Scripture from a
strict fundamentalist point of view with
the aid of archaeology.

While the reviewer yields to none in
his belief that the Bible is the Word of
God for man's redemption, and while
he is thankfully aware of the tremendous contribution archaeology has made both in illuminating the Bible and in
supporting its historical accuracy, he
does not believe that this book will give
the reader a full and unbiased picture
either of the Bible or of the nature of
archaeological evidence. It is, however, an excellent and interesting illustration of the extreme fundamentalist,
"Bible believer's" (the inference being
that some of the rest of us do not believe the Bible with all our hearts) view of Scripture. It will, therefore, be of
more value to the student of current
theological opinion than to the student
of archaeology. The appendix which
defines fundamentalism, as opposed to
liberalism, neo-orthodoxy, and mere
conservatism will be especially interesting in this connection.

That is how history goes. If you find one thing that is "overturned" (your word), then nothing they discovered is right.

Look, I really don't want to play that game. Once again I have let you completely change the subject, one stupid question at a time.

I think that a defence of circumcision is that it has been practised by my people for 4000 years. You think that if parents are allowed to force their children into playing american football they should be able to do this.

AND DON'T say I didn't answer your questions. I did. You did not understand the answers, or disagreed with them.

re: #172 Buck

Actually, that's not a valid defence of any ritual.

re: #172 Buck

That is how history goes. If you find one thing that is "overturned" (your word), then nothing they discovered is right.

Who claimed that? I called him a great scholar, and he was. However, he started from a biased place, and that biased his work.

Look, I really don't want to play that game. Once again I have let you completely change the subject, one stupid question at a time.

Buck, it's not my fault that you depend on an outdated Evangelical Christian for your biblical scholar. Please read some of the more modern research.

I think that a defence of circumcision is that it has been practised by my people for 4000 years.

I know. And that's a really stupid defense, since how long something has been done means nothing on its own.

You think that if parents are allowed to force their children into playing american football they should be able to do this.

Nope. I used football as an example something more damaging than circumcision-- especially since circumcision is a net health benefit, as I said.

AND DON'T say I didn't answer your questions. I did. You did not understand the answers, or disagreed with them.

You never answered a lot of them. You never answered what the cruelty in seething a kid in its mothers milk is, why you depend on evangelical Christians for biblical research, why you believe in the historicity of Abraham because of the allegedly (though, most likely since your source is way out of date, not) correct description of towns in the Torah.

A long list of things you didn't answer.

re: #169 Lenin's Mummy

I must say I expected something this pathetic from Buck when he referenced above a 1959(!) encyclopedia(!).

Right because 1959 was a bad year for knowing the History of the Jews.

re: #175 Buck

Right because 1959 was a bad year for knowing the History of the Jews.

No, because a generic 1959 encyclopedia is neither up-to-date, nor a proper scholarly source.

But you've already shown that you wouldn't know a proper scholarly source from a comic book by referencing Free's non-scholarly Christian apologetics.

re: #174 Obdicut

You never answered a lot of them.

Again, I answered all of them, you just didn't like or understand the answers.

And you never actually found anything that said any of the sources were "overturned" (again your word) in respect to the archaeological record of the time of Abraham.

re: #177 Buck

Again, I answered all of them, you just didn't like or understand the answers.

So you say.

re: #176 Lenin's Mummy

No, because a generic 1959 encyclopedia is neither up-to-date, nor a proper scholarly source.

But you've already shown that you wouldn't know a proper scholarly source from a comic book by referencing Free's non-scholarly Christian apologetics.

I was talking about a place to start with regard to studying the subject matter. I know you are clearly an anti Christian bigot, but don't worry, that is ok around here.

re: #178 Lenin's Mummy

So you say.

The difference is that I actually back it up in detail in #150

re: #177 Buck

And you never actually found anything that said any of the sources were "overturned" (again your word) in respect to the archaeological record of the time of Abraham.

[Link: www.jstor.org...]

re: #179 Buck

Please point out what Sergey said that was bigoted against Christians, please.

re: #179 Buck

I was talking about a place to start with regard to studying the subject matter. I know you are clearly an anti Christian bigot, but don't worry, that is ok around here.

Nice ad hominem, Buck. Coming from a slimy lying shithead like yourself I'll take it as a compliment - in fact, it's the best demonstration that I'm not an anti-Christian bigot, of course.

But way to bait and switch. Christianity has nothing to do with this. A fundie apologetic comic book is not a place to start any historical research. No more than a creationist "textbook" is a place to start research on evolution. Dumbass.

re: #180 Buck

The difference is that I actually back it up in detail in #150

Again, that's what you say.

re: #181 Obdicut

[Link: www.jstor.org...]

OK, a link from a google search....What does it mean? Specifically?

Did you read the book?

re: #185 Buck

It's not a book. Are you blind?

re: #183 Lenin's Mummy

But way to bait and switch. Christianity has nothing to do with this.

And yet you mention it in almost ever one of your last posts.

fundie apologetic comic book
non-scholarly Christian apologetics.
a Christian-slanted book by a self-confessed Biblical inerrantist

And on and on. Yet it has nothing to do with it.

re: #187 Buck

And yet you mention it in almost ever one of your last posts.

And on and on. Yet it has nothing to do with it.

Yes, I'm pointing out it's a religious apologetic, not a scholarly tome, moron.

re: #186 Lenin's Mummy

It's not a book. Are you blind?

Article.... fine... what difference is there if it is just a link?

re: #189 Buck

Find it, read it. In fact, I've downloaded it and will be skimming it now. Thanks, Obdi.

re: #185 Buck

It's not a book, Buck, but yes, I've read it, and quite a few others as well. Uri gave it-- and others-- to me to read, as companions to his translations. It's a journal.

Basically, very few of Albrights conclusions were standing back then, and his methods are no longer seen as workable. By this point, probably fewer of his conclusions remain.

It's only $9, and this is a subject you're passionate about-- why not purchase and read it?

re: #191 Obdicut

Basically, very few of Albrights conclusions were standing back then, and his methods are no longer seen as workable. By this point, probably fewer of his conclusions remain.

Then you should have no problem listing the ones that are in respect to the archaeological record of the time of Abraham.

re: #190 Lenin's Mummy

Heh. Here's a funny bit with Dever defending himself against a guy who really is the sort of boogeyman Buck believes you to be.

[Link: www.bibleinterp.com...]

re: #192 Buck

Then you should have no problem listing the ones that are in respect to the archaeological record of the time of Abraham.

I don't have the journal at hand, Buck, it's back in California. But it's right there, available for $9. Why not purchase and read it, since you are so passionate about this subject?

As I said, the conclusions are-- and again, this is unsurprising in archaeology-- that Albright's conclusions have been almost universally overthrown. As I said, I don't have the journal at hand so I can't state for certainty if there is any conclusion remaining.

Why not read it, Buck?

Albright's conclusions have been almost universally overthrown.

Bull shit

William Foxwell Albright
1891 - 1971
A Biographical Memoir
Copyright 2008, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C.
By Thomas Levy and David Noel Freedman

[Link: www.nasonline.org...]

Although the great ameriCan sCholar william foxwell
albright passed away many years ago, he is still regarded
by most levantine archaeologists, biblical scholars, and other
near eastern researchers of the world of the bible as a genius.

re: #195 Buck

What you are citing is not a scholarly work, Buck, but a biographical memoir.

Are you going to download and read the journal article I cited?

And if not, why not?

re: #194 Obdicut

OK, this passage is relevant:

Let us look, then, at the particu-
lars of Albright's agenda-the super-
structure, as it were, of the house that
he built. As for grounding
the Bibli- cal Patriarchs in history (in
this case, Albright's Middle Bronze I period,
ca. 2100-1900 B.C.E.), the cumulative
results of archaeological research have overturned Albright's
recon-struction completely. Van Seters,
Thompson, and others had already
assembled the textual evidence; and
in 1977 I surveyed the archaeological
data. Since then, virtually no com-
mentator has paid serious attention
to Albright's views. Today, the uni-versal
scholarly consensus is that nei-ther the literary materials nor the
archaeological data permit us to say
anything with certainty
about a "Patriarchal era" in history. The tradi-
tions are late, and probably unreli-
able (Thompson 1974; Van Seters
1975; and Dever 1977). Virtually the
only treatment attempting to utilize
archaeological data since this shift
is McCarter (1988).

re: #196 Obdicut

What you are citing is not a scholarly work, Buck, but a biographical memoir.

Are you going to download and read the journal article I cited?

And if not, why not?

It details why saying that "Albright's conclusions have been almost universally overthrown" is bullshit. It also refers to many scholarly works.

Let's get this straight. You want to know why I wont make your argument for you? You want to back up what you say, do it.

re: #198 Buck

You're really not going to read it, are you?

re: #197 Lenin's Mummy

More:

If we turn to Albright's second
agenda item, "Moses and Monothe-
ism," even less can be said. Albright
asserted, for instance, that:

The practical monotheism of
Moses and other early Israelite
religious leaders is again being
accepted (1964:294). Only one God ... This is the view
of the entire Old Testament
(1964:99). The religion of Israel did not
change in essentials from Moses
to Hillel (1964:57).

Yet the overwhelming scholarly
consensus today is that Moses is a
mythical figure; that Yahwism was
highly syncretistic from the very beginning; and that true monotheism
developed only late in Israel's his-tory, probably not until the Exile and Return (see the state-of-the-art stud-ies gathered in Miller, Hanson, and
McBride 1987)

re: #200 Lenin's Mummy

And more:

Albright's next crusade was to
provide archaeological validation for the
conquest of Canaan by the Israelites under Joshua. Until about
1980, this model could still
compete with others, such as the "peaceful
infiltration" or "peasants' revolt"
models. But a decade of intensive,
multi-disciplinary field excavation
and survey, mostly carried out by
Israeli archaeologists, has
swept away "conquest models"
completely. One has only to look at Israel Finkel-
stein's The Archaeology of
the Israelite Settlement (1988), the best synthesis, as well as at a voluminous secondary literature, to realize that
today no reputable Biblical scholar or archaeol-
ogist anywhere would espouse Albright's views. Whatever the
details, it is clear that the vast major-
ity of the "early Israelites" were indigenous Canaanites. Mendenhall
was right 30 years ago: there was no "conquest." The
theological ramifica- tions of that fact have
scarcely been envisioned; but that is another
story (Dever 1990; 1992b; 1992c; 1992d)

re: #195 Buck

Buck, i've now read that memoir, and nowhere does it assert that Albright's conclusions-- besides specific ones about ceramics at one dig-- still stand.

Where are you seeing, for example, support for his chronology in that article?

re: #201 Lenin's Mummy

And finally:

Finally, we must ask what is of
lasting value in Albright's Biblical and historical syntheses. The answer
is, very little. His central theses have all been overturned, partly by further advances in Biblical criticism, but
mostly by the continuing archaeolog- ical research of younger Americans and Israelis to whom he himself
gave encouragement and momentum. The
negative side of all this is that the "revolution" that Albright confi-dently predicted has indeed come about at last, but hardly in the way that he anticipated-quite the oppo- site. The irony is that, in the long run, it will have been the newer, "secular" archaeology that contributed the
most to Biblical studies, not "Biblical
archaeology."

re: #203 Lenin's Mummy

I like Dever because he steers what I feel is a very rational middle ground between the minimalists and the maximalists, though the accrual of evidence throughout his life has probably pushed him farther towards the minimalist point of view.

Well, Buck, these are the essential passages that Obdi meant. No need for you to buy the article.

re: #202 Obdicut

Buck, i've now read that memoir, and nowhere does it assert that Albright's conclusions-- besides specific ones about ceramics at one dig-- still stand.

Where are you seeing, for example, support for his chronology in that article?

That was not why I linked to the memoir. It was to refute what you said that "Albright's conclusions have been almost universally overthrown".

re: #202 Obdicut

In fact, even that article is critical of his chronology.

while albright made very few scholarly mistakes in his
life, he himself described one or another admitted errors as
beauties. he was sure that ekron, the ancient mound site in
southern israel, was not where the more recent excavations
have proved it to be. in addition, albright was convinced
that the patriarchs and matriarchs could be located in the
middle bronze age and his famous interpretation of genesis
1 has proved to be unworkable.

So, Buck, even from your own source, there's an admission that his chronology for the patriarchs is incorrect.

re: #206 Buck

That was not why I linked to the memoir. It was to refute what you said that "Albright's conclusions have been almost universally overthrown".

But it doesn't do that, Buck. It doesn't touch on his conclusions almost at all, and of one of his main conclusions-- the chronology of the patriarchs-- it's critical.

In general, it doesn't touch on his conclusions.

re: #205 Lenin's Mummy

Well, Buck, these are the essential passages that Obdi meant. No need for you to buy the article.

Right, and it is Devers opinion that no one pays any attention to Albright. Got it. However it is not as universal as he would like to make it seem.

re: #209 Buck

Right, and it is Devers opinion that no one pays any attention to Albright. Got it. However it is not as universal as he would like to make it seem.

Can you name a modern scholar who does-- not pay attention to him as a seminal, brilliant, and wonderful teacher in the field-- as I said about him-- but in terms of his actual scholarship?

re: #209 Buck

By the way, you alleged Sergey was an anti-christian bigot. Are you going to bother to try to support that ugly attack?

re: #207 Obdicut

made very few scholarly mistakes

I certainly didn't say he was perfect. No one is.

Again I want to get back to the subject. I think that a defence of circumcision is that it has been practised by my people for 4000 years.

You think I am wrong (shocka).

You think that a better defence is parents are allowed to force their children into playing american football (which you think is more damaging than circumcision ) they should be able to do this. Especially you say, since circumcision is a net health benefit.

re: #211 Obdicut

By the way, you alleged Sergey was an anti-christian bigot. Are you going to bother to try to support that ugly attack?

Again.... I did in #187

re: #212 Buck

Again I want to get back to the subject. I think that a defence of circumcision is that it has been practised by my people for 4000 years.

How long something has been done is not a defense of it.

For example, people have been persecuting gay people for thousands of years. Doesn't make it right.

You think that a better defence is parents are allowed to force their children into playing american football (which you think is more damaging than circumcision ) they should be able to do this. Especially you say, since circumcision is a net health benefit.

Yes, it is much better, because it doesn't rely on something arbitrary, like tradition.

We allow kids to have their bodies put at risk for various reasons, including cultural ones, when the kids have little say in it. Circumcision provides a net health benefit.

Why do you feel that's not a good defense of circumcision?

re: #213 Buck

How does correctly noting those works are non-scholarly Christian apologetics, written by a self-confessed Biblical inerrantist amount to anti-Christian bigotry?

Are any of those statements untrue?

And can you going to bother to name a modern scholar who depends on Albright's scholarship, or are you unable to do so?

re: #209 Buck

Right, and it is Devers opinion that no one pays any attention to Albright. Got it. However it is not as universal as he would like to make it seem.

Um, not, that's not what he says. He says that his most significant conclusions have been overturned. Which is true. Here's from a 1999 symposium named after Dever's article:

Recently, that legacy was challenged when at the 1991
annual meetings of the Society of Biblical Literature in
Kansas City, my friend and colleague at Arizona, William
G. Dever, presented a paper entitled "What Remains of
the House that Albright Built?," which was later
published in Biblical Archaeologist 56/1. Dever's paper in
part inspired the title of the 1999 Symposium and
Centennial Celebrations for the W F. E Albright Institute
for Archaeological Research held in Boston that forms
the substance of this issue of Near Eastern Archaeology. I
remember that 1991 SBL session vividly after more than
ten years. The panel had regaled the audience with an
hour and a half of hagiography that even included a tape
recording of Albright, after which Dever concluded the
session with a stinging critique of Albright's so-called
house. After the lecture, the audience sat in a clearly
uncomfortable and somewhat stunned silence. What
remained of the "house that Albright built" after Dever's
critique? Well, not much. Dever's critique did not
completely level the edifice, but it did reveal where
remodeling was needed

Near Eastern Archaeology, Vol. 65, No. 1, The House That Albright Built (Mar., 2002),
p. 4

So Dever's main conclusion re:Albright seems to be the current consensus.

But it doesn't mean "no one pays attention to Albright". Of course they do. He was a great and prolific, if flawed, scholar. Certainly people pay attention. But his main results have been overturned.

re: #213 Buck

Again... I did in #187

Well, no, actually you just lied, as usual.

re: #212 Buck

I certainly didn't say he was perfect. No one is.

Again I want to get back to the subject. I think that a defence of circumcision is that it has been practised by my people for 4000 years.

Is this a defense of any ritual practiced by a people for centuries?

re: #212 Buck

Oh, and on the subject of circumcision-- are you defending the oral suction of the blood, by the way, or just circumcision?

If so, what do you think about the significant disease risk posed by that-- as shown by this case, and the high prevalence of HPV in the population?

re: #219 Obdicut

He does. I asked him specifically about that.

re: #214 Obdicut

people have been persecuting gay people for thousands of years.

You know that is not the same thing. It is not a long standing religious tradition to persecute gays.

It is a long standing Catholic religious tradition to be against birth control. You can't make it illegal for Catholics to be against birth control. Why not? Your football argument doesn't work here.

re: #218 Lenin's Mummy

Is this a defense of any ritual practiced by a people for centuries?

Basically I cover that in my #80.

So not any people.

re: #221 Buck

You know that is not the same thing. It is not a long standing religious tradition to persecute gays.

Er, yes it is.

It is a long standing Catholic religious tradition to be against birth control.

No, actually that's very, very new.

You can't make it illegal for Catholics to be against birth control.

Okay...?

Why not? Your football argument doesn't work here.

Because you can't make it illegal for anyone to be against anything? What are you talking about?

re: #222 Buck

Basically I cover that in my #80.

But your criteria are either arbitrary or make the "4000 years" irrelevant.

Respect is a subjective measure. Of course those who practice FGM respect that custom, so it's a respected custom - by some.

Awareness of rational roots makes 4000 years irrelevant, since if the practice is rational (and thus not harmful by def), it's sufficient justification for the practice. This makes your argument redundant.

And organization is neither here, nor there.

re: #224 Lenin's Mummy

organization is neither here, nor there.

Why not? I think it is very important.

re: #225 Buck

Why not? I think it is very important.

Well, explain, and also address the rest.

re: #226 Lenin's Mummy

Well, explain, and also address the rest.

No, you explain. I think I did in my #80

re: #223 Obdicut

Edit: The Catholic church's opposition to contraception is also very, very old, but not consistent.

Anyway, I still have no clue what the hell was being asked of me there.

re: #227 Buck

Are you claiming Mosaic law didn't condemn homosexuality, by the way?

re: #227 Buck

No, you explain. I think I did in my #80

You've simply thrown out the word there but didn't explain how "organization", whatever you mean by that, is relevant.

re: #230 Lenin's Mummy

You've simply thrown out the word there but didn't explain how "organization", whatever you mean by that, is relevant.

Of course I did. I contrasted it with small groups that are not united are scattered and have different reasons for the practise. I contrast that with a large (millions) organized religion that is practising the same tradition for the same reasons over thousands of years.

I did that in my #80 (and less so in my #63). All you did is say is "organization is neither here, nor there."

Why is it neither here, nor there?

re: #231 Buck

What does the size matter, or the length the tradition was practiced, though? You keep begging the question. Why are these attributes important?

re: #231 Buck

I contrasted it with small groups that are not united are scattered and have different reasons for the practise.

Well, then that is redundant, since your argument about a rational reason supervenes on this. If there is a rational reason, then there aren't many irrational reasons. So there's no need to bring up organization in addition to the rational reason.

---

The problem is that "sign of covenant with God" is not a rational reason. "Hygiene" would be a rational principle, but that's not the reason given for circumcision by the religious. So it's a religious reason, and as such does not preclude harm.

But maybe practice throughout the centuries precludes harm? No, FGM is also practiced for centuries by millions and is harmful, so mere mass practice establishes nothing. And it cannot be objected that unlike FGM, which is based on irrational principle, circumcision in our case is rational. Because above we've seen that circumcision is not done for a rational reason.

Finally, rationality of the reason also does not preclude harm, because the reason may be based on wholly rational assumptions that are potentially wrong (since rational humans are fallible). The only way to see if the rational reason leads to harm or not is through controlled testing.

Conclusion: the only sure way to say whether or not a particular ritual is harmful is through scientific-medical testing.

re: #233 Lenin's Mummy

re: #232 Obdicut

*Opens notebook, uncaps new fountain pen, scribbles note to self: Never, ever pick a fight with Sergey or Obdi about rationality...*

re: #234 CuriousLurker

The really fucking stupid part about this is that I defend circumcision, I just don't do it in the irrational way Buck wants. And Sergey's opposition was all couched as 'devil's advocate', and I've never seen him mount any serious opposition to circumcision, and seen him note that normally anti-circumcision proposals are sourced in or draw from anti-semitism.

re: #233 Lenin's Mummy

Well, then that is redundant,

No it is not redundant. It is a key part of my argument. You dismiss it out of hand without a good reason.

The rest of your #233 needs that the long standing organized religion part of my point is unimportant or redundant. It isn't.

My #80 is clear on the difference between a an organized and respected long standing religion like Judaism, and the millions who are divided into scattered and unrelated groups practising FGM and how they all have different illogical and irrational reasons.

However the organized part is not redundant. It is key.

re: #236 Buck

Why is it being organized or long-standing important? What bearing does that have?

re: #237 Obdicut

Why is it being organized or long-standing important? What bearing does that have?

Seriously You are just asking the same questions hoping for a different answer.

I have answered that multiple times. Just because don't like the answer, or don't understand it doesn't mean I didn't answer.

re: #236 Buck

No it is not redundant. It is a key part of my argument. You dismiss it out of hand without a good reason.

Are you being dishonest? I gave the reason:

Well, then that is redundant, since your argument about a rational reason supervenes on this. If there is a rational reason, then there aren't many irrational reasons. So there's no need to bring up organization in addition to the rational reason.

You can't simply ignore or dismiss it as a bad reason without addressing it.

But that's all moot since the reason given for the religious ritual of circumcision is not rational. I'm not saying it's wrong or right, but it's simply not based on reason. It's based on tradition; it's based on religious precepts; but not on reason. And moreover, rationality of the reason is not enough to establish that it does no harm, as I have also explained. So your thesis fails.

re: #238 Buck

Seriously You are just asking the same questions hoping for a different answer.

I have answered that multiple times. Just because don't like the answer, or don't understand it doesn't mean I didn't answer.

No, you've never answered.

You see, when a person who actually has an answer gets asked the same question, they give the same answer. You never do. You simply claim you answered already.

So, prove me wrong: Give the answer again.

re: #239 Lenin's Mummy

And moreover, rationality of the reason is not enough to establish that it does no harm, as I have also explained.

This should be obvious, but just to illustrate: the reason for circumcision may be 100% rational, like hygiene. And yet still we wouldn't know from the reason itself whether harm would be done. This is established by medical professionals through controlled observations.

So what I'm saying is that the reason doesn't matter, actually.

re: #240 Obdicut

So, prove me wrong: Give the answer again.

The answer to "Why is it being organized or long-standing important?"

In my #80

I contrasted being organized or long-standing with small groups that are not united are scattered and have different reasons for the practise. I explain that a large (multi millions) organized religion that is respected in the world, and has been practising the same tradition for the same reasons over thousands of years has credibility and standing.

I did that in my #80

Your answer can be "No it is not" as you have done multiple times. However it does not mean I didn't already answer that multiple times.

re: #242 Buck

I explain that a large (multi millions) organized religion that is respected in the world, and has been practising the same tradition for the same reasons over thousands of years has credibility and standing.

No, Buck. The question is "Do large organized religions that have been practicing the same tradition for the same reasons over thousands of years have credibility and standing?"

What you're doing is asserting that a long-standing religious practice has credibility because the religion is long-established and large. I'm asking you to support that contention. You're merely repeating it.

You can't prove credibilty by stating they have credibilty.

Please give an actual answer. Why is being large and long-standing any sign of being credible?

For example, Orthodox Judaism and Catholicism have both been intolerant of homosexuals for their entire existence-- though there's some heartening change in Orthodox Judaism now.

re: #243 Obdicut

The question is "Do large organized religions that have been practicing the same tradition for the same reasons over thousands of years have credibility and standing?"

No the question was "Why is it being organized or long-standing important?"

However, to answer your NEW question,

the answer is yes.

For example, Orthodox Judaism and Catholicism have both been intolerant of homosexuals for their entire existence-

Which as religions go does not take away from their credibility and standing.

Interesting that you like to mention the Catholic Churches view on homosexuality and not Islam. I think you would admit the level of tolerance (your word) is light years different.

However, back to the subject,
If enough people feel strongly about the plight of homosexuals the religion will either change or die.