Oh hey, non-Jews everywhere! Please do me a favor: if you are adamantly opposed to circumcision, please do not comment on how “barbaric” or whatever it is that Jewish law dictates that…
What? What did I say? I simply pointed out the history of Jewish and Christian practices of circumcision is rooted in a story where a man loads a zoo onto a boat. If there’s anything that’s nonsense or crap, it’s the Bible.
Well, I don’t know why I bother, but… even if you really, truly believe that that’s the literal origin of circumcision,
Oh, I’m so sorry, Liberal Christian, I forgot that in your view, you get to be the arbiter of what parts of the Bible are literal and what parts are not.
THAT’S NOT A LOGICAL REASON TO BE OPPOSED TO IT.
Who said anything about opposition? Not supporting a thing isn’t opposing it. Just like not having a belief in a thing isn’t asserting it isn’t real.
It’s an ad-hominem fallacy.
Actually, it’s not. But in a stunning Shyamalanian twist, you’re going to commit this very fallacy at the end of this post.
If someone told me that we brush our teeth because a magical fairy will pull them out if they’re not clean enough, that does indeed qualify as ‘silly’, but it doesn’t imply that brushing my teeth is a bad decision.
A…..HA! So, you admit that the ends justify the means? Your implication is that people are stupid and incapable of rational behavior and need a myth to guide them. You’re also implying that it’s OK to teach proper social, moral, hygienic, or any other behavior through fear, even if the manifestation of that fear isn’t really there to begin with. This comment really exposes a fundamental flaw with the way you’ve been taught to think, LC.
What you’re really saying is, ‘I think Christianity/Judaism is stupid and therefore circumcision is bad.’ That’s. called. illogical.
And there’s your ad hom.
There are actual issues and questions about circumcision that could be addressed.
The conversation started out with some insolent ninny insisting that any of your “actual questions about circumcision that could be addressed” were to be precluded by a discussion of the claimant being an anti-Semite for even broaching the subject.
If you can’t address them, then you’re every bit as ignorant and irrational as people who claim it must be done because the bible says so. (I.E. It must NOT be done because the bible says so)
Uh, why should I have to defend why manipulating an infant’s genitalia is stupid? Shouldn’t the people who do it (and sometimes suck the blood out with their filthy, bacteria trap mouths (that’s not anti-Semitic, by the way, every living creatures mouth is a filthy, bacteria trap I wouldn’t put on an open wound).
And then there’s the fact that you’re misrepresenting the story of the ark, and the covenant with God, etc etc… but that’s really too obvious to even debate.
I’m sorry, it’s true that Noah promised the all powerful creator of all things that he would chop off part of his wingdangdoodle before the all powerful creator of all things found no other way to correct what he perceived as naughty behavior by the people he created besides drowning most of them.
I guess he had a moral beef with a bunch of other animals too, because most of them got wiped out, not that there’s even a shred of evidence for a flood that matches that description or any logical way a 600-year-old man (pfft) living in his region of the world could possibly amass every other living animal on a ship, but it’s all vital we just accept the wonder and the magic of it because if we don’t we might get cavities. Right?