Shop now Shop now Shop now  Up to 50% Off Fashion  Shop all Amazon Fashion Cloud Drive Photos Shop now Learn More Shop now Shop now Shop Fire Shop Kindle Learn more Shop now Shop now
Customer Discussions > religion discussion forum

"It's a lie. Any talk of God that does not comfort you," Meister Eckhart.

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 76-100 of 135 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on 21 Jun 2012 10:39:16 BDT

Some infections are not caused by bacteria as such, but are inflammations caused by irritants. There are some types of antibiotic which address inflammation rather than bacteria, though for some reason they are not used much now. So if sand gets into a moist area it can cause problems not associated with whether the person has washed or not. Usually these areas are self-cleaning anyway.

There is a condition called balanitis which can have several causes, but occasionally a biopsy will reveal a small foreign body inside the area which sets up an inflammation. This could be sand or soot, so in the desert it could be that a common problem occurs not directly related to the lack of water as such, but to the presence of sand flying around. Also I doubt that early Arabs had antibiotics even though their knowledge of medicine was good.

In this country I can't see the point in performing circumcision routinely.


In reply to an earlier post on 21 Jun 2012 10:57:33 BDT
H W says:
Hi Caroline

Interesting stuff. Well a lot of desert dwelling cultures practised the ritual in the Middle-East. But the same cannot be said of Chinese populations in the Gobi Desert, or indeed Indian populations in the Thar desert.

So that is why I placed it down to perhaps a lack of water originally, rather than sand. The Foreskin evolved for a few reasons, one of them being to protect the glands from such things. Should sand happen to get in... then rinse thoroughly.


ps. I agree that circumcision should not be performed in the West. If at all.

In reply to an earlier post on 21 Jun 2012 11:12:35 BDT

Surely, if something treats inflammation and not bacteria, it's an anti-inflammatory and not an antibiotic...?

In reply to an earlier post on 21 Jun 2012 12:35:33 BDT
H W says:

As Luke says in the bible, Christ was circumcised, because his parents observed the "Law of the LORD"... not the law of Moses, or Jews, or Israelites.

"And when eight days were completed for the circumcision of the Child, His name was called Jesus, the name given by the angel before He was conceived in the womb.

"Now when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were completed, they brought Him to Jerusalem to present Him to the Lord . . . and to offer a sacrifice according to what is said in the law of the Lord . . ." (Luke 21-22, 24, NKJV throughout unless stated)

Since Joseph and Mary scrupulously observed Leviticus 12 in rearing Jesus, it follows that they scrupulously observed Leviticus 11 in their choice of meats which were fed to Jesus and the rest of their children. The observant nature of Jesus' family is further confirmed in Luke 2:39:

"So when they (Joseph and Mary) had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee . . ." (Luke 2:39)

In reply to an earlier post on 21 Jun 2012 12:48:12 BDT
Last edited by the author on 21 Jun 2012 12:48:50 BDT
Jim Guest says:
'As Luke says in the bible, Christ was circumcised, because his parents observed the "Law of the LORD"'

No. Luke didn't use capitals. He was not a wet-leg believer.

When is your psychiatric appointment, Harry? Because you are going to need one, if you really imagine that millions of people are going to follow OT laws on your say-so.

In reply to an earlier post on 21 Jun 2012 13:16:38 BDT
H W says:
I used capitals to highlight the fact Jimbob.

You can't refute the fact that early Christians were circumcised, out of faith for their God.

Christ only knows who you're worshipping today.

In reply to an earlier post on 21 Jun 2012 14:12:30 BDT
Jim Guest says:
'I used capitals to highlight'

You used capitals to give the impression that Luke highlit. Which is a lie. But then you have never failed to post without at least one lie, have you. Your computer sounds an alert, and will not operate, should you forget.

'early Christians were circumcised'

Why not now, then?

In reply to an earlier post on 21 Jun 2012 14:15:25 BDT
H W says:
Because of Saul's "Great Penis Debate".

As far as I'm aware Jesus never abolished any laws.

Posted on 21 Jun 2012 14:26:00 BDT
Spin says:
Circumcision is not unique to Judaism and Islam. It is practiced, along with female circumcision, in African nations. So the practice has less to do with religion than with some collective consciousness concerning the benefit of circumcision. Can the environment, eg: living in a desert, have anything to do with it? Do environmental conditions have any real or perceived detrimental effect on the penis? (I hve heard that workers in the Antartic have special "willy-warmers" in thier clothing to protect their penis from instant frostbite should they have to take a leak outside,,,)

In reply to an earlier post on 21 Jun 2012 14:31:19 BDT
Jim Guest says:
So 'Saul' was not an early Christian.

In reply to an earlier post on 21 Jun 2012 14:32:17 BDT
Last edited by the author on 21 Jun 2012 14:36:38 BDT
Isobel Ayres says:
Spin, this is the second time you've equated male and female circumcision. Why do you do this? There is no discernible link, if you are arguing that circumcision is carried out for cleanliness.

Female circumcision is carried to prevent women from experiencing sexual pleasure and can be incredibly extreme to the extent that everything within the outer labia is literally scraped away, without anaesthetic, on pubescent girls*, the outer labia then sewn up or otherwise held together so that they heal completely shut with scar tissue, with only a small opening left for menstruation. Where this extreme 'circumcision' is carried out, men actually have to cut their brides open with a knife in order to have sex with them (there are charities that work in Africa, trying to encourage the safe and medical opening of these women. Many men do not allow this to happen to their future brides, thinking that it makes them less of a man). This is horrific and not comparable to circumcision of male babies.

* There was a harrowing documentary on this. The filmmakers filmed two girls about to undergo the process (which was only filmed from a distance, with five or six women holding her down). The older sister went first, and the younger had to sit in an anteroom and listen to her screaming. It was one of the worst things I have ever seen and still makes me feel physically sick.

I can't provide links to this right now as it's not something I can google at work. However, I can assure you I am not exaggerating this. Information is available in multiple locations and there are documentaries on the subject. Additionally, my step mother is a psychotherapist who works with refugees from Africa who have experienced FGM so I know of what I speak.

In reply to an earlier post on 21 Jun 2012 14:50:11 BDT
Last edited by the author on 21 Jun 2012 14:51:06 BDT
Spin says:
Isobel: No discerible link? Slicing a male penis and slicing a female clitoris in the name of religious and/or cultural belief are not "linked"? I have argued that just as female circumcision is to deny sexual pleasure so male circumcision makes the penis more sensitive (the penis would, like he clitoris, be cut off if it were not for the fact that the male pleasure area is connected to the penis, A woman can conceive without the clitoris but a male lacking a penis cannot father a child. By cutting off the forskin the penis becomes less sensitive to arousal (but not wholly insensitive) after years or being exposed. But I agree with you that circumcision is a barbaric practice. I cannot find any justification for it, which is why I am asking questions about it on this thread in the hope of getting a reply from someone with actual experience of it.

In reply to an earlier post on 21 Jun 2012 14:56:23 BDT
H W says:
Saul was circumcised. He is saved. You are not.

He changed the law, saying gentiles don't have to be.

And you follow his words, not his actions.

In reply to an earlier post on 21 Jun 2012 14:57:25 BDT
Isobel Ayres says:
If you want to argue that male circumcision (which you argued above was for cleanliness) which results in a slight reduction of sensitivity, is equatable with what I described above, you can. You'd make yourself look pretty damn stupid, though.

Your post above already contains one contradiction "so male circumcision makes the penis more sensitive ...By cutting off the forskin the penis becomes less sensitive to arousal" so I can only gather that you haven't a clue what you're talking about.

Additionally, religion has long allowed men sexual pleasure but denied it in females.

In reply to an earlier post on 21 Jun 2012 15:04:23 BDT
Spin says:
Isobel: a typo. My thought moving faster than my typing abilities. The circumcised penis is less sensitive...Ok? Have I satisfied your pedantry and fake sense of confusion?

In reply to an earlier post on 21 Jun 2012 15:14:21 BDT
Last edited by the author on 21 Jun 2012 15:15:03 BDT
Isobel Ayres says:
No. Especially given that the multitudes of circumcised men do not seem to suffer unduly with this lack of sensitivity - even those who have had it carried out as adults.

I'm not saying I agree with the circumcision of baby boys, but I do think that your attempt to argue that male circumcision is comparable to FGM (and carried out for the same reason) is stupid, wrong, and an actual affront to women who have suffered it. Why don't you ask them whether they consider being opened with a knife (and the open wound then entered) comparable to the loss of a foreskin, Spin? Seriously. Think about what you are saying.

In reply to an earlier post on 21 Jun 2012 15:15:12 BDT
Jim Guest says:
'Saul was circumcised. He is saved.'

There's a God, now. Dawkins is dead, long live the flesh-cutters.

Ahab was circumcised. Is he saved?

Saul disobeyed. Saul went to the witch at Endor. Saul may not be saved.

'He changed the law, saying gentiles don't have to be.'

How do you know that?

In reply to an earlier post on 21 Jun 2012 15:18:18 BDT
Spin says:
Isobel: I have never claimed that one form of circumcision is more acceptable than another. Unlike you, I do not "compare" babaric acts in order to assess their barbarity or morality. It is you, not I, who is arguing that one form of circumcision is worse than the other. Do not misrepresent me because of a personal bias you hold.

In reply to an earlier post on 21 Jun 2012 15:24:45 BDT
Last edited by the author on 21 Jun 2012 15:32:42 BDT
Isobel Ayres says:
Yes, I am arguing that one form of 'circumcision' is worse than the other, because it demonstrably is. If you want to wave that away as my personal bias, by all means do, but I'd like to see you explain how FGM *isn't* worse.

Posted on 21 Jun 2012 15:29:07 BDT
We practice the barbarism of complete hysterectomies in this country. I wonder how many of those are absolutely necessary?

In reply to an earlier post on 21 Jun 2012 15:32:23 BDT
Isobel Ayres says:
How is a medical hysterectomy barbarism?

Posted on 21 Jun 2012 15:36:09 BDT
Jim Guest says:
You folks could not find somewhere else to discuss this, could you? I'm sure it's putting some off discussing what ought to be here.

Posted on 21 Jun 2012 15:38:51 BDT
I wonder if FGM has some link with religion in some of these countries? Maybe an African one. It would be against the spirit of these forums to reject the idea without attempting to examine what is behind it surely?

In reply to an earlier post on 21 Jun 2012 15:43:21 BDT
Jim Guest says:
The spirit of these forums is not to reject any idea that shouts down the truth.

Posted on 21 Jun 2012 15:44:00 BDT
Jim Guest says:
Talk about what the foook you like!
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in

Recent discussions in the religion discussion forum

  Discussion Replies Latest Post
Important Announcement from Amazon
154 12 Aug 2015
The Power of Prayer. 1899 1 hour ago
2nd referendum, for those that don't believe in democracy. 165 6 hours ago
If an all knowledgeable God created life, why is there cancer? 1358 7 hours ago
Why are the BBC so slow to report incidents such as the Cologne new years eve's sex attacks, by immigrants or the Muslim paedophile rings in Rotherham and Rochdale. Is it because THAT IS THE CULTURE AT THE BBC. 34 8 hours ago
God, the referendum. God LEAVE or God REMAIN. Only one vote each until you don't like the result and start a petition. Then you can have hundreds of votes 3 19 hours ago
The power of prayer 33 21 hours ago
Today's most intelligent and outspoken atheist is .... 297 22 hours ago
Religion, No Religion - Who Really Cares? 5 1 day ago
Christopher Hicthens 4176 1 day ago
Morality and ethics. 86 1 day ago
New Evidence That Christianity is Fake and Jesus Never Existed 1071 1 day ago

More Customer Discussions

Most active community forums
Most active product forums

Amazon forums

This discussion

Discussion in:  religion discussion forum
Participants:  16
Total posts:  135
Initial post:  15 Jun 2012
Latest post:  27 Jun 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.

Search Customer Discussions