discuss

Fail

This.

There is no argument whether it is true or not. There is only faith in that it is true, and healthy reasonable logical skepticism that it is not.

End of story.

Thus spake 'niggersexual.'

Strike this as a victory for antitheism! :rolleyes:

Okay, okay. Let us humor you. Think for a second of the book of Genesis and the story of Abraham. Think of this excerpt from the passage on the covenant between God and man.

And God said unto Abraham: 'And as for thee, thou shall keep My covenant, thou, and thy seed after thee throughout their generations. This is My covenant, which ye shall keep, between Me and you and thy seed after thee: every male among you shall be circumcised. And ye shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of a covenant betwixt Me and you. And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every male throughout your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any foreigner, that is not of thy seed. He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised; and My covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. And the uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken My covenant.

Translation from http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0117.htm


Now it is clearly ordained by God that the circumcised are inherently superior for they have kept their covenant with the Lord and so he is with them. We only need to look at history to see that this is true.

In the First Book of Kings (Samuel), there is a passage in which David and his men, at the request of Saul, kill and removes the foreskins of 200 Philistines. These uncircumcised men if they had made a covenant with God would not have been killed like this for they would have no foreskins to take. Here the circumcised triumph over the uncircumcised. Perhaps this is a fictional story but it's message remains, even if only allegorically. Indeed I think it is more meaningful this way as slaughter is never meaningful. I'll go to examples of the modern era as these are more thoroughly documented, not relying solely on the word of a text thousands of years old, and I feel any argument you might wish to have over them will be more productive on both ends.

America wasn't always the superpower it is today. I don't believe circumcision became common practice in the United States until the dawn of the 20th Century. When did the US begin to surpass the rest of the world? The beginning of the 20th Century. The evidence speaks for itself.

Who are arguable the most powerful group of people on a person to person to basis. The Jews. They control everything: banks, media, banks. It is also coincidence (of no accidental nature) that they also are a very highly circumcised people. There were many German "Jews" who threw off their religion in favor of assimilation to German culture. Those same Jews were herded up into camps where millions died. Those who keep their covenant are justly rewarded.

Look at Europe. At the moment, only a small minority is circumcised. What has happened to them? Formerly the greatest power in the world. Since the independence of America, they have fallen to us. Britain and Germany were the two greatest European powers of the industrial revolution. However, Britain fell behind. Germany fell behind as well post-WWII, no doubt punishment for their persecution of the superior Jewish people. Thus to Egypt, thus to Germans. The last great superpower was Russia? Were they circumcised. I don't know but they follow the same particular sect of Christianity which condemned any depictions of our Lord. Perhaps the insult to His image causes Him displeasure for who delights in criticism of their own beauty? There is beauty in all the Lord's creation.

But, oh wait! Isn't circumcision viewed as unnecessary by biblical teachings? Let us turn to The First Epistle to the Corinthians 7:17-24 for example.


Only let each person lead the life that the Lord has assigned to him, and to which God has called him. This is my rule in all the churches. Was anyone at the time of his call already circumcised? Let him not seek to remove the marks of circumcision. Was anyone at the time of his call uncircumcised? Let him not seek circumcision. For neither circumcision counts for anything nor uncircumcision, but keeping the commandments of God. Each one should remain in the condition in which he was called. Were you a slave when called? Do not be concerned about it. (But if you can gain your freedom, avail yourself of the opportunity.) For he who was called in the Lord as a slave is a freedman of the Lord. Likewise he who was free when called is a slave of Christ. You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men. So, brothers, in whatever condition each was called, there let him remain with God.

Paul says that one should stay to their station. However, this is only a narrow-minded interpretation. The greater message is that one should stay always in the humble service of the Lord for what position in the universe is more common and native than the subordination to the common God? Circumcision - is it really that important? Physically, perhaps not, it is the covenant it symbolizes. The foreskin is just a seal of that covenant. Do what you do, but do it in the service of the Lord.

Look at the men you know. Who are the most successful? Who are the most circumcised? Those who aren't circumcised, who have no covenant with the Lord are cut off from their people, the fellow men of God, not physically by ostracism, but spiritually. Ultimately, what one needs to realize is that what one does for others, one does for oneself; what one does in the service of the Lord, one does in the service of all.

Huh?

"The bible gives importance to P,
I can find an example of Q benefiting from P,
therefore the bible is true,
therefore a religion that worships the bible is true" ?


Yeah, that's silly...


[ This of course just focusing on the lack of validity in your deductive argument, while ignoring the plenty of other biblical passages where Paul speaks against circumcision.]

Huh?


I can find an example of Q benefiting from P,


Not even that,

I can find loose instances where Q (a positive event) happened and P was present.

Not everything is logically deducible. Especially not history. Even from a very general perspective, facts are most always assumptions. If you want to discuss this, perhaps you should argue with the actual content of the argument rather than simply dismiss it because it doesn't conform to your perceived standards of logical rigor.

Logic is a philosophy of truth and how truths and untruths interact. History is the huge mass of a series of neither truths nor untruths which cannot truly be put up to the same scrutinizing lens as the simple p and q. Rather, it is the job of the interpretive historian to look at what he does know (or rather, what he thinks he knows) and to lay down not necessarily logical in the sense of the pure philosophy, but reasonable guesses about connections, motivations, etc. in order to attempt to further our understanding of an impossibly large picture. Nothing in history is truly certain. It is what we gain from our history that matters.

Sorry but you make a claim that falls under the realm of logic and reason the moment you make the statement of truth: Christianity is true, and X is why.

We are acting completely reasonably in taking that X (i.e. those reasons) and seeing how we cannot infer what you have. To not do so would be dishonest.

Again:

"The bible gives importance to P,
I can find an example where Q (a positive event) happened and P was present [Excellent point honkymahfah]
therefore the bible is true,
therefore a religion that worships the bible is true"

is not a reasonable statement. By that atrocious logic we could claim pretty much all religions are true, even those that contradict each other! I'm willing to bet we can find similar events that "make" other religions true as well.

Sorry but you make a claim that falls under the realm of logic and reason the moment you make the statement of truth: Christianity is true, and X is why.

We are acting completely reasonably in taking that X (i.e. those reasons) and seeing how we cannot infer what you have. To not do so would be dishonest.

Again:

"The bible gives importance to P,
I can find an example where Q (a positive event) happened and P was present [Excellent point honkymahfah]
therefore the bible is true,
therefore a religion that worships the bible is true"

is not a reasonable statement. By that atrocious logic we could claim pretty much all religions are true, even those that contradict each other! I'm willing to bet we can find similar events that "make" other religions true as well.

You forget that religions don't operate within the realms of logic. They introduce variable outside it. It's like saying you'll read this post, unless ghosts stop you from doing so!

1. Who says that they operate outside logic? Because they claim the variables they introduce are outside of it? That's a nice way of saying "Religions say stupid shit".


2. I'm not really talking about religions, I'm talking about his point. His point is that Christianity is true. We determine truth values through logic and reason. If they "operate outside of logic" then he couldn't really give it a truth value in the first place - not with any argument at least.

The point is that his argument doesn't follow: Just because he can cite an instance where people that have undergone circumcision have gotten a good outcome does not mean that a whole religion is true. That's not outside logic, that's within the realm of what logic can handle - and it handles it by saying "that doesn't follow".

Why do you people give so much effort in a thread that was so little thought out?

Hell, I'll completely ignore his logic which took him to his argument and play his game. With one fell swoop I shall give evidence as to why circumcision does not lead to success and vice versa.

The prevalence of circumcision varies widely between cultures. For example, circumcision is reported to be nearly universal in the Middle East,[9] but under 2% in Scandinavia.[10]

YET, the Middle East is in shambles and poor, yet Scandinavian countries have great wealth and quality of life.

Furthermore:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Global_Map_of_Male_Circumcision_Prevalence_a t_Country_Level.png

Africa and the Middle East are the two regions where circumcision is the most prevalent, yet they are easily two the poorest areas of the world.

Why do you people give so much effort in a thread that was so little thought out?

So much effort? A few paragraphs is "so much effort" to you?


--

Also, now that Kiko refuted the argument even if we were to accept the awful reasoning within it: /thread.