Christ was reunited to his foreskin after resurrection before ascending to heaven?

[RobertW]

I found this old archived article on-line yesterday in urotoday.com. It's so old that I'm not posting it in the Press Room forum. But I thought it was a little bit bizarre and might generate some interesting discussion here. I don't recall being taught about Christ's foreskin in Sunday School but maybe the adults were discussing it upstairs. I like the idea that some theologians view foreskin as part of a perfect body; as they should.

--------------------------------------------------------

Sunday, 21 May 2006

AUA 2006 - ABST[940] The circumcision of Jesus Christ

Johan J Mattelaer*, Kortrijk, Belgium; Sakti Das, Lafayette, CA.

Introduction and Objective: Circumcision of Jesus Christ has remained shrouded in controversy over the ages involving religion, theology, art and mythology. The present paper analyzes the historic events dictating the reluctance of christianity to mandate circumcision. The depiction of circumcision of Christ in numerous art works and the claims of many churches in Europe to possess 'the holy foreskin' of Christ remain as matters of intense curiosity.

Methods: Religious, theologic and art historic evidences regarding the circumcision of Jesus Christ were studied. Artistic presentation of the subject matter and theologic stances were analyzed.

Results: Jesus Christ was born as a Jew and consequently was circumcised on the 8th day after his birth. In Christianity, until 1960, the 1st of January was shown on calendars not as New Year's day but as the Feast of Circumcision day. Notwithstanding the fact that Jesus was circumcised, Christianity never accepted or followed the practice. Although the Jewish converts were allowed to be circumcised, it was forbidden for the heathen converts. After a lot of theological discussion finally at the first council of Jerusalem in 48 AD, the anti-circumcision position was confirmed and a new sacrament was created to take its place: the baptism. In light of this theological position, it seems paradoxical that uncircumcised Christian artists have created so many images relating to circumcision of the child Christ in paintings, sculptures, carvings, manuscripts and even music. Since the middle ages, the 'holy foreskin' of Christ (le Saint Prepuce,- Santissimo Prepuzio - Praeputium Domini) have been worshiped in beautiful reliquaries all over Europe.
In Medieval times there was a lot of discussion on the thorny question whether or not Christ was reunited with his foreskin after his resurrection "thus allowing him to ascend to His heavenly father with a perfect body, entire and in tact".

Conclusions: Born as a Jew, Jesus Christ was circumcised as depicted in numerous paintings, sculptures, carvings and manuscripts. Christianity however has not condoned the practice of this rite. Some theologians believed that to restore his perfect body after resurrection before ascending to heaven, Christ was reunited to his foreskin.

Forum: History of Urology (1:00 PM-5:30 PM)

[benniboy237]

quick answer: Christ was circumcised. he was jewish. he was perfect by jewish standards: i.e. the levitical law as found in the torah (Gen. Ex. Lev. Num. and Due. for all the christians).

christians don't practice circumcisionreligiously because of St. Paul's letter. Paul repeatedly explains that it is no longer relevant the the [I]christian{/I] faith. now the ritual is baptism.

in jewish culture: Circumcision represents the covenant between Abraham and God, and since all hebrews are the "sons of abraham" it represent the covenant between man and God. basically, it was abraham's pledge to stay holy. the idea is (and many physicians still argue this), "foreskin gets pretty dirty. it is a dirty thing. by removing the foreskin, it is symbolic for the removal of sin"

now the thing about "dirty foreskin" is simple too, so don't get upset yet. in 'bible times'--we're talking BC beginning of time here, living conditions were...so-so to say the least. people did not bathe often, they couldn't. running water didn't exist. when they did bathe it was in a lake or river, and that water may've been less than clean. for the time period, it was nearly impossible to keep the foreskin clean. this is why the philistines and/or gentiles were referred to as "unclean." they were spiritually unholy or unclean and they were physically unclean as well. this parallel of physical/spiritual health is a motif throughout the entire bible. check 1 timothy.

now, they thing about Christ being reunited w/ His foreskin. i'm gonna have to argue for many reasons. the simplest one is that christian belief teaches that earthly, human bodies are unclean. the "flesh" as paul refers to it in romans 7.14-22 is in a constant battle with the spirit. the body that we know is fragile and temporary. it will waste away, but God is going to provide His followers with a new heavenly/spiritual body that is not temporary.

basically, Christ's earthly body was temporary anyway. so when he ascended into heaven, he would've received a whole new one and i don't foreskin was much of an issue (it just doesn't seem relevant in the grand scheme of things when you're--you know--God.)

secondly, Christ was never actually a "christian." Christians were/are followers of Christ. the greek term literally means "little Christ." Christ couldn't very well follow Himself. Christ was a jew. and for a Jew to have a foreskin He would have been considered imperfect and thus not been the messiah and all that jazz that the entire Christian faith is built on. a "perfect jewish body" would not have a foreskin. so sorry for all you guys who want Jesus to be intact, but it's just not logical because he no longer has a body as we know it anyway (still not sure what this means.)

[TLCTugger]

now the thing about "dirty foreskin" is simple too, so don't get upset yet. in 'bible times'--we're talking BC beginning of time here, living conditions were...so-so to say the least. people did not bathe often, they couldn't. running water didn't exist. when they did bathe it was in a lake or river, and that water may've been less than clean. for the time period, it was nearly impossible to keep the foreskin clean. this is why the philistines and/or gentiles were referred to as "unclean." they were spiritually unholy or unclean and they were physically unclean as well.
May I expand upon that explanation.

Judaism and Islam have strong voodoo against touching bodily fluids.

The natural foreskin does VERY WELL THANK YOU in the desert with no running water. All you have to do is make sure it balloons when you urinate. Sterile urine leaving the body flushes the area under the foreskin "clean" and leaves the surfaces perfectly hygienic. If your foreskin isn't overhanging and tightly puckered, you may have to grip the end lightly to get the optimal effect.

But wait, if I grip my penis while urinating I might get some on me, and the invisible sky bully might get angry (sorry I can't pretend I don't have contempt for religion).

I believe the perceived edict to avoid unclean bodily fluids (which may have evolved through trial and error for very practical reasons) gave rise directly to the introduction of genital cutting into Judaism and Islam.

[benniboy237]

very true ron. i don't think that circumcision was every absolutely necessary. if it were, i'm sure the "gentiles" would've done it, and the Hebrews would've gotten along much better with them (minus the whole pagan idol worship and obviously conflict of beliefs.)

why is it that you don't care for religion? is it because of the whole circumcision theme that is often adopted in them.

[NaturalMikeSoon]

Ron,

I have always believed that restoration, and the subsequent discussion boards, and community, were a built upon the concept of support.

I think what you've done for the cause, for yourself, for me and for others is admirable.

However, I also believe that we are all entitled to our own beliefs. If you choose to condemn and abhor religion, I believe you are entitled to that belief. I also believe I am entitled to my beliefs.

In an effort to be supportive, is it necessary, or beneficial, to condemn that to which I hold as my most important belief. Since others, and I, choose to believe in God, is it necessary for you to refer to him as the "invisible sky bully"?

I find that expression offensive. I don't find it helpful. It's your sandbox, ... and therefore we must adhere to your rules. However, what do you gain through ridicule of the beliefs of others? Does it serve this purpose of restoration ...this discussion board ...the cause of restoration? Does it enhance your business goals to, potentially, alienate customers by making fun of what they believe?

Can you not just simply state that you believe something vastly different that I do? I don't find it necessary to condemn your beliefs just because I don't agree with them.

Whether you choose to sell your products to me in the future or not is your choice. Whether you choose to continue to, rightfully, express your opinion is your choice? Whether you choose to ridicule the beliefs of others is your choice?

But ...I'm entitled to express my opinion too; to let you know that I'm offended, and I don't think it was necessary.

Respectfully,

Natural Mike Soon

[admin]

Hi,
I thank Mike and anyone else I offended if you're still here.

I look for natural and evidence-based explanations for things, and I think my theory about how genital mutilation could have crept into some of man's myths is as valid as any other.

If I say I have contempt for religion, I hope you will understand it from my vantage point; providing help to so many victims of something that is (nearly universally perceived to be) sanctioned by religion.

I hope you will believe me when I say I love and feel compassion for you as a person even if I can't respect an institution that you support.

I'm an open atheist and I hear from religious people all the time about how they're praying for me, and I say that's very thoughtful and how wonderful that we can care about each other. I should hope that likewise if an atheist says he thinks rational thought is just too important to keep to himself, that religious people can see that not as a personal attack, but as an expression of compassion. I decided long ago that world peace (which I feel is impossible while religions inevitably conflict) is just so important that I would never shrink from my atheism no matter the cost.

I guess I'm sorry but unrepentant. I know I can be more respectful.

-Ron

[benniboy237]

ron-

i'm still here. and you didn't really offend me. it takes a great deal to offend me. however, i do believe what u said was a bit disrespectful; however, let he w/o sin cast the first stone. i know i've disrespected plenty.

you wrote: "even if I can't respect an institution that you support."


"If I say I have contempt for religion, I hope you will understand it from my vantage point; providing help to so many victims of something that is (nearly universally perceived to be) sanctioned by religion."

i think you may be missing the difference between religion and faith. "Christianity" is a faith, but pentecostal is a religion. (different people will use different buzz words, but the idea is the same).

personally, i view religion as a system of actions that accord themselves with a particular belief or faith. such as Jews circumcising their children on the eighth day. or the Catholics receiving communion before they are determined "saved."

faith on the other hand, is a system of beliefs that breeds actions. Christianity for instance teaches that "faith without works is dead" (James 2).
Islam teaches that it's believer should make a pilgrimage to Mecca. Faith is meant to be a catalyst for actions; however, in American culture, and human nature we see it the other way around. Humans have a tendency (and i'm speaking about myself here mostly), to act first then seek justification, and many believe faith is a means of justification.

in defense of Christianity, we're looking for world peace too. Christianity for instance teaches nothing about intolerance of homosexuals or "liberals" (whatever the hell this means). Christianity actually teaches to tolerate and love everyone despite our short comings. (now i'm not saying that homosexuality is a short coming, but from the Christian/biblical standards it is a sin.) the bible teaches that "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" (romans 3.23), so in a sense the Christians are supposed to tolerate everyone b/c we're all in the same boat of just being down right shitty people.

in defense of the Jews and the circumcision ritual: disclaimer: I do NOT agree with infant circumcision EVEN FOR RELIGIOUS REASONS. but i also do NOT believe that religious beliefs should be imposed on ones children. this is what i believe. this is from the perspective of "Ben" based on what he's endured throughout his life. however, Jewish belief teaches that you should (impose is not the best word for it), dedicate not only your life but your family's to the Lord. the ritual that is sparked (again, faith comes first, then action) by this dedication is the right of circumcision.

now if i were Jewish, i would find this beautiful. i would be of the mindset: "i believe in God so much--i trust Him so much that if my son weren't part of the awesome thing, then i couldn't live because i love my son that much. and this circumcision is my way of telling God that my life is not my own. my son is not my own. and because God, You're so powerful, His life is not his own even if he doesn't realize it, so i give him to you and humble myself" When i look at it that way, it is beautiful, and I would be willing to be circumcised AS AN INFANT if i were Jewish.

but

i'm not Jewish. and I do not like the idea of imposing on someone's free will. So, i consider it a bit odd.

you and i cannot judge religious peoples by our standards just like religious peoples ought not judge us by their standards. WE HAVE DIFFERENT STANDARDS. this is not to say that one set of "morals" (whatever the hell these really are) is better than the other. "morals" are subjective to people's upbringing and belief system. understanding this is the first step to tolerance i believe.

doing my best,
shalom,
Ben

[Matzi]

basically, Christ's earthly body was temporary anyway. so when he ascended into heaven, he would've received a whole new one and i don't foreskin was much of an issue (it just doesn't seem relevant in the grand scheme of things when you're--you know--God.)

Then why ascend at all except to show off?

[Joseph]

ron-

i'm still here. and you didn't really offend me. it takes a great deal to offend me. however, i do believe what u said was a bit disrespectful; however, let he w/o sin cast the first stone. i know i've disrespected plenty.

you wrote: "even if I can't respect an institution that you support."


"If I say I have contempt for religion, I hope you will understand it from my vantage point; providing help to so many victims of something that is (nearly universally perceived to be) sanctioned by religion."

i think you may be missing the difference between religion and faith. "Christianity" is a faith, but pentecostal is a religion. (different people will use different buzz words, but the idea is the same).

personally, i view religion as a system of actions that accord themselves with a particular belief or faith. such as Jews circumcising their children on the eighth day. or the Catholics receiving communion before they are determined "saved."

faith on the other hand, is a system of beliefs that breeds actions. Christianity for instance teaches that "faith without works is dead" (James 2).
Islam teaches that it's believer should make a pilgrimage to Mecca. Faith is meant to be a catalyst for actions; however, in American culture, and human nature we see it the other way around. Humans have a tendency (and i'm speaking about myself here mostly), to act first then seek justification, and many believe faith is a means of justification.

in defense of Christianity, we're looking for world peace too. Christianity for instance teaches nothing about intolerance of homosexuals or "liberals" (whatever the hell this means). Christianity actually teaches to tolerate and love everyone despite our short comings. (now i'm not saying that homosexuality is a short coming, but from the Christian/biblical standards it is a sin.) the bible teaches that "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" (romans 3.23), so in a sense the Christians are supposed to tolerate everyone b/c we're all in the same boat of just being down right shitty people.

in defense of the Jews and the circumcision ritual: disclaimer: I do NOT agree with infant circumcision EVEN FOR RELIGIOUS REASONS. but i also do NOT believe that religious beliefs should be imposed on ones children. this is what i believe. this is from the perspective of "Ben" based on what he's endured throughout his life. however, Jewish belief teaches that you should (impose is not the best word for it), dedicate not only your life but your family's to the Lord. the ritual that is sparked (again, faith comes first, then action) by this dedication is the right of circumcision.

now if i were Jewish, i would find this beautiful. i would be of the mindset: "i believe in God so much--i trust Him so much that if my son weren't part of the awesome thing, then i couldn't live because i love my son that much. and this circumcision is my way of telling God that my life is not my own. my son is not my own. and because God, You're so powerful, His life is not his own even if he doesn't realize it, so i give him to you and humble myself" When i look at it that way, it is beautiful, and I would be willing to be circumcised AS AN INFANT if i were Jewish.

but

i'm not Jewish. and I do not like the idea of imposing on someone's free will. So, i consider it a bit odd.

you and i cannot judge religious peoples by our standards just like religious peoples ought not judge us by their standards. WE HAVE DIFFERENT STANDARDS. this is not to say that one set of "morals" (whatever the hell these really are) is better than the other. "morals" are subjective to people's upbringing and belief system. understanding this is the first step to tolerance i believe.

doing my best,
shalom,
Ben

Sorry, I disagree.

Nothing could ever justify the mutilation of children. Not religion, not faith, not EVER.

Just because I respect people's freedom of faith and/or belief, doesn't mean that I don't think that what others believe is stupid.

Talk about disrespect. Why is Chrisitanity and/or Judaism so special? What makes them such sacred cows?

What about what Ron believes? And the fact that what you are saying could be disrespectful to HIS beliefs?

Or are Christianity and/or Judaism that much more important, that only Jews and Christians can feel insulted at what Ron has to say?

Faith and religion are the exact same thing; living your life, acting out your life, as if what you believe is gospel truth, even though what you believe cannot be proven scientifically, even though it can be disproven scientifically. It is the stubbornness to insist that what others can't feel, see, or otherwise perceive, is there. Because you believe it, and no one can tell you what to believe.

I think it's interesting how you try and draw a difference between "religion" and "faith." All I have to say is that neither justifies the mutilation of another individual.

If religion is the thoughtless dogma with which some people choose to act, then there is something inherently wrong with that religion.

"faith on the other hand, is a system of beliefs that breeds actions. "

If your faith breeds the action of circumcising another individual, then, even though I respect your freedom to believe whatever you want, I think there is something fundamentally wrong with your faith.

Christianity for instance teaches that "faith without works is dead" (James 2).

The truth is, Christianity teaches whatever you want it to. In a different part of the New Testament, admittedly, I don't know the concordance, "faith by works" is also condemned.

Christianity for instance teaches nothing about intolerance of homosexuals or "liberals"

Really? The word "liberals" appears in the bible? Maybe you're reading the NIV. But actually, if anything, the bible tells us that homosexuals should be stoned to death. The same with whores, adulterers and fornicators. It's interesting that when it suits them, Christians like to pretend this isn't in the bible. Or they conveniently like to chop the branch from the tree by saying that "the New Testament cancels out the Old."

I'm not one for pretending the emperor is not wearing any clothes. I dropped Christianity, because as a Christian, I'd be burning in hell. Why on EARTH would I want to be part of a religion or faith that condemns me to hell? Personally, I don't see why some homosexuals insist on calling themselves Christians. Why would you want to be part of the very religion that condemns you? But HEY. To each their own. That's what they want to believe, I can't tell them what.

I do NOT agree with infant circumcision EVEN FOR RELIGIOUS REASONS. but i also do NOT believe that religious beliefs should be imposed on ones children.

You need to clarify. It sounds like you are saying the exact same thing. Circumcising a child to suit YOUR spiritual needs is by definition imposing your religion on your children.

Jewish belief teaches that you should (impose is not the best word for it), dedicate not only your life but your family's to the Lord. the ritual that is sparked (again, faith comes first, then action) by this dedication is the right of circumcision.

By the way, it's RITE. No one has the right to circumcise anybody.

if i were Jewish, i would find this beautiful. i would be of the mindset: "i believe in God so much--i trust Him so much that if my son weren't part of the awesome thing, then i couldn't live because i love my son that much. and this circumcision is my way of telling God that my life is not my own. my son is not my own. and because God, You're so powerful, His life is not his own even if he doesn't realize it, so i give him to you and humble myself" When i look at it that way, it is beautiful, and I would be willing to be circumcised AS AN INFANT if i were Jewish.

So much to be politically correct. You have just contradicted what you said above.

Are you not aware that there are Jewish people listening to the voice of reason, and who are choosing to put their mouths where their convictions are, and choosing a more peaceful naming ceremony over circumcision?

It's OK to disagree with a religion or faith system, benniboy.

It sounds like you are so afraid of being politically incorrect.

You don't have to walk around eggshells. What you choose to believe may prove insulting to others, just as Ron's words were insulting to you.

It's OK to agree to disagree.

you and i cannot judge religious peoples by our standards just like religious peoples ought not judge us by their standards. WE HAVE DIFFERENT STANDARDS. this is not to say that one set of "morals" (whatever the hell these really are) is better than the other. "morals" are subjective to people's upbringing and belief system. understanding this is the first step to tolerance i believe.

It sounds all real pretty and "tolerant" of you, benniboy, but how far are you tolerant?

Consider this, benniboy. The West has decided that under no circumstances, religious or cultural, will female genital mutilation be allowed in this country. SO against this practice is the West that men and women have taken it upon themselves to speak out against the practice. Openly. No respect for "culture," "faith," or "religion." But yet, everywhere I turn, there seems to be some sort of exempt for "Jews" and "American culture." "To look like dad" isn't even a religious excuse, yet it's perfectly valid.

So where do you draw the line?

Would you say that the West doth go too far in pressuring Egypt, other countries in the Middle East and Africa to stop FGM? That there needs to be this ban lifted in the US, so that Islamic, Tribal and Indonesian peoples can practice the circumcision of females, because it is oppressing to their faith?

If you did, at the very least, it would be consistent with the rest of what you are saying.

As it stands, though, it seems that we Americans don't seem to care too much for religion, faith and/or tradition, as long as the people we are going after are people seeking to circumcise women.

But male circumcision? Oh, don't touch that. That's a holy covenant Jews hold dear.

As for me, no religion, no faith, no culture justifies the mutilation of the body of a non-consenting individual.

If there is going to be a ban on genital mutilation, ban it ALL. Or DON'T ban it at all.

So how far do we "tolerate" mutilating cultures? As long as the individuals being mutilated are men and boys?

Why do we "tolerate" male circumcision because of "faith," "culture," "tradition," or what have you, but not that of women?

Tolerating your beliefs, faith, religion, customs, etc, as long as you are not harming others...

Joseph

[Joseph]

Hi,
I thank Mike and anyone else I offended if you're still here.

I look for natural and evidence-based explanations for things, and I think my theory about how genital mutilation could have crept into some of man's myths is as valid as any other.

If I say I have contempt for religion, I hope you will understand it from my vantage point; providing help to so many victims of something that is (nearly universally perceived to be) sanctioned by religion.

I hope you will believe me when I say I love and feel compassion for you as a person even if I can't respect an institution that you support.

I'm an open atheist and I hear from religious people all the time about how they're praying for me, and I say that's very thoughtful and how wonderful that we can care about each other. I should hope that likewise if an atheist says he thinks rational thought is just too important to keep to himself, that religious people can see that not as a personal attack, but as an expression of compassion. I decided long ago that world peace (which I feel is impossible while religions inevitably conflict) is just so important that I would never shrink from my atheism no matter the cost.

I guess I'm sorry but unrepentant. I know I can be more respectful.

-Ron

I second you, Ron.

Personally, it's insulting to ME that people take rational thought and make it out to be a personal attack.

I cannot coexist with such people for long.

This is why I chose to abandon Christianity and stay away from Church and Christians as much as possible.

Well, at least the kind of Christians that are so holier-than-thou and so uptight that everything you say to them is "insulting."

My mother has learned to live with ME and MY beliefs for instance, so I guess I have grown to tolerate HER somewhat.

:D

[Tally]

As it stands, though, it seems that we Americans don't seem to care too much for religion, faith and/or tradition, as long as the people we are going after are people seeking to circumcise women.

But male circumcision? Oh, don't touch that. That's a holy covenant Jews hold dear.
Joseph, very thought provoking. I always appreciate reading your posts.

I have often wondered about the American government's obsession with Israel and Jews. It seems we go out of our way to defend Israel, more so than any other country. Is Judaism so ingrained in "the powers that be" that circumcision is condoned if not advocated?

This is even more interesting because I think the average person in the street, if they have any opinion at all, is hostile toward Jews. Just one more example of the divide between the "common person" and American authority (government, doctors, etc.)

[Joseph]

Thanks Tally...

I can get long-winded, and I admit it. Sorry if it's much to read. but that's me.

Trying to work on my writing style...

About Judaism, there's no reason to hate or have hostility towards Jews, anymore than there should be reason to hate or fear Africans, Indonesians, Egyptians, or any other peoples that circumcise WOMEN.

Just because you think something is wrong doesn't mean you have to hate an entire population. I've said it before, there are Jews who have chosen to move forward and leave this ancient blood ritual behind.

History teaches us that culture, tradition etc... can be changed. That's why we don't have slaves or stone gays and promiscuous men and/or women to death anymore. It used to be that there was something so wrong with "inter-racial marriages." If we work at it, I think infant circumcision can be done away with too. I think it's possible for us to believe whatever we want, without harming others.

[Joseph]

To get back on topic,

Whether Jesus was "re-united" or not with his foreskin is probably up to how people want to interpret the bible.

If you think that "perfect" implies having your WHOLE body, then perhaps, maybe, yes. When Jesus rose from the dead, maybe by some strange miracle, his foreskin grew back. HEY. In the bible, couldn't Jesus disappear and/or re-appear at will? Maybe his foreskin just re-appeared after he rose from the dead and he was "perfect."

But someone else on here pointed out that Jews believe that circumcision makes you "perfect." (Though I find that conflicting with the other Jewish idea that all what god creates IS perfect by virtue of being created by god. God makes no mistakes. Unless... OOPS... there is some obscure interpretation in some other Jewish book we don't know where god admits he couldn't see the dirt accumulating under the foreskin with his powers to see past, present and future...) But then, if you are TRULY Jewish, then you don't believe the whole Jesus crap. The New Testament was made up, like the book of Mormon. And this conversation is pointless. -- But let's just say for the sake of argument that Jews buy the whole Jesus Christ thing. -- MAYBE Jesus ascended unto heaven "perfect" and circumcised.

WHICH... conflicts with this other bit of data: God created Adam "perfect" in his image. Uh-oh, there's a really big problem here. (Gasp!) Adam wasn't circumcised! If God commanded ABRAHAM to begin this strange covenant, then this can only mean that all other godly figures before Abraham were not circumcised. And this can only mean...

God is male, and he has a penis! (Though you gotta wonder why he sent down a holy spirit instead of using his monstrous cock to impregnate Mary. Maybe god's cock would rip her apart? ANYWAY...) Yes, it's true. God has a penis. And if god has a penis, then this can also only mean that it is, yep... you guessed it... a hooded crusader!

The conflicts arizes thus: Jesus arrives "perfect" (according to the Jews) at the presence of god's "perfect" image. They both look at each other. God, still donning his foreskin looks at Jesus and says, "well gee. Something's not right here."

Well, that's if you believe in god the father, and Jesus the son. Let's go with the "one-ness" theory. So Jesus comes down from heaven to be "perfected" by man? So like, lemme get this straight. God, the creator of all the heavens and the earth, and the rest of the universe, has this mistake growing at the end of his penis. God is not perfect! OH NO!!! So if you are a one-ness person, maybe, perhaps, it would make more sense that Jesus ascended up to heaven with his foreskin again. Otherwise, the implication would be that god was this imperfect creature that rose to heaven "perfect" because men made him that way?

But whether or not you believe in a single god-head or a trinity, it can only make sense that when Jesus rose to heaven, he would have had to somehow get his foreskin back. Christians can't be Jewish by the very definition that they believe in salvation by the blood of CHRIST (not by the blood of circumcision). You can't be both Jewish AND Christian, because it conflicts with the whole "law vs. crucifixion" thing.

So, there you have it folks.

If you are Jewish AND believe that Jesus rose to heaven because he was god/god's son (HIGHLY doubtful), then Jesus was made perfect when he was circumcised, and thus he ascended unto heaven "perfect" (IE, missing his normal, god-given [waw, waw, waw] body parts). (If you are Jewish, the definition of being circumcised as "perfect" also conflicts with the definition of "being created by god in his image" as perfect. But whatever. Christians live with their own religious contradictions too so... there you go...)

But if you are Christian, being circumcised does not equal "perfect" to you, and thus Jesus would have had to somehow get his foreskin back.

I'll have to quote from the Simpsons:

"Some rabbis say yes, other rabbis say no."

[1Taoist]

Robert W: interesting topic. I think the religious history and discourse here goes a long way toward understanding this most controversial of practices. What is it they say you must avoid at cocktail parties if you want to have a good night? Politics and religion. And too bad they usually come together.

The part I find so interesting is religion in art and the intellectual interpretation. Only one thing I'll say to Ron (and anybody else so minded) is...intellect will only take us so far. And not so far at that. There is much to this world we will never understand through the prism of rationality. Just my 2 cents.

Contradictions abound. And stick out all over the place. But I found the part about the parallel of physical/spiritual health interesting. The thing about spirituality is it isn't hard reality. It's not subject to known laws of physics. Therefore it's methods and practices, by definition, will always seem stupid and nonsensical. And religion will always be one cunt-hair from insanity.

Intellectually, atheism and theism are two sides of an inseparable coin. By definition, they are circular arguments. Believing there's no sky bully is the same as believing there is: the minute you believe either way, you validate it's opposite. By believing in a sky bully, we make a strong case there is none. By believing in no sky bully, we inadvertently give credence to one. They are the same, because nobody can know.

The idea that Jesus was circ'd, from a historical perspective, is fodder for intense debate in regards to baptism replacing circ. I don't know and I didn't hear anybody indicate this but it seems to me that Judaism being a patriarchal society, christianity probably sought the baptism route because it included the women. Much of the Gnostic tradition centers around the feminine principle and historically the question of Jesus being married to Mary Magdelene has resurfaced the feminine cult aspects, which may lean toward the historical rite of baptism as being more political, but the religious meaning of the rite (and it's suppositioning of circ) as being more embracing of the feminine. I'm not up on my Roman Catholic history and circ, but this transition between circ and baptism strikes me as historically relevant.

[1Taoist]

And Benniboy237- any more discussion from you is requested. I found your post very informative and intellectually stimulating.

[benniboy237]

first of all, i'm not trying to be "tolerant" i'm trying to be objective.

my goal was not to offend, and as i said earlier, i was not offended. i wasn't speaking from Ben-the-Christian's morals and values. i was speaking on Christianity as a whole. my faith was irrelevant. if i have said something to offend, i'm very sorry, please alert me to the specifics of it.

however, if you haven't figured out already, i am in fact a Christian, and i believe what the bible says. only what the bible says. and because of this, yes, i think Christianity is the only true faith, and yes, i do believe that everyone else will burn in hell for all eternity. but, i'm not casting a personal judgment here (or am i? i guess it doesn't really matter). it's just what i believe, and i would like to see everyone in heaven, but i'm not going to be able to "save them." i can only love them.

i have a genuine care about humanity and i don't want any of you to end up in hell, but i also recognize that there is a massive problem with the Christian Church when it come to things like public relations and evangelism.

the bible teaches Christians to be like Jesus, and if you read the bible Jesus has a pretty distinct character. He was loving, peaceful, compassionate and just an all around great guy. since Christianity began, we've failed to actually do this "Christ-like" thing.

there were the crusades. there's all those conservative radicals who are blowing up abortions clinics. I'm sure some religious maniac has actually stoned a homosexual. to quote Ghandi, "your Christ I like, your Christians I do not. they are very much unlike your Christ."

i have to agree with Ghandi. we are unlike Christ. If christians were like Christ, then we never wouldn't needed Christ to come along and do the whole death/salvation thing. and we would've stayed jews, there would've been no evolution of faith because none was needed. and yes, we'd still be circumcising.

i'm trying to be "politically correct" because i care about people, and i want to be a "good christian." Forgive me for being sold out to my faith *sarcasm*


what ron said about the "sky bully" was mildly offensive only because Christians understand God not to be a bully, but to be loving. However, well read Christians also know that God is wrathful because he tolerates nothing less than holiness. this is because if God were to tolerate less then holiness, then He wouldn't be God.

joseph wrote, "The truth is, Christianity teaches whatever you want it to. In a different part of the New Testament, admittedly, I don't know the concordance, "faith by works" is also condemned."

at the risk of sounding like an intolerant elitist, Christianity does not teach whatever one wants it to. Christianity has been distorted (like most religions) by the people who practice it. Christianity can be twisted however one wants to twist it, but i daresay, those who allow Christianity to be relative aren't christians. The bible does not contradict itself, its very fluid. on the surface it may appear to, but when put into context, its quite clear. if you have any concerns about a specific passage(s) being contradictory, just send me a private message. i'll do my best to clear it up for you, but i may need to call some of my friends in seminary, i'm not near a biblical scholar or theologian. i just study.

Christianity teaches that faith without works is dead. it also teaches that faith by works are dead. this is because faith and works are two necessary parts of Christianity. what this means is, works DO NOT save you. but neither does belief alone. WORKS ARE THE PRODUCT OF FAITH. if you love God, you will follow his commandments. "If you love me, obey my commandments." --John 14.15 (NLT) As i said, faith breeds actions.

Religion and faith are different. one can religiously read the newspaper each morning, but faith is believing in the unseen. religion is a social construct. dictionary.com defined faith as "belief that is not based on proof" and the same source defines religion as "the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith."

the two differ. religion can exist without faith. if you don't believe me, attend a church service and you'll see it. if you're not a Christian but you're attending a Christian church service, you're being religious, but not faithful.

joseph wrote, "Really? The word "liberals" appears in the bible? Maybe you're reading the NIV. But actually, if anything, the bible tells us that homosexuals should be stoned to death. The same with whores, adulterers and fornicators. It's interesting that when it suits them, Christians like to pretend this isn't in the bible. Or they conveniently like to chop the branch from the tree by saying that 'the New Testament cancels out the Old.'"


as far as i know, the word "liberals" does not appear in any translation of the bible, but i havent read them all yet, so i could be wrong. this is why in my original post, i put the word in quotation marks. i'm sorry if i wasn't clear,but to clarify, i was being sarcastic. "liberal" and "conservative" as we know them today are social construct and have little value. for some reason, certain characteristics are applied to each term. "liberals" are often considered to favor the democratic party etc. i think this is utterly ridiculous. but most "conservatives" (again, they only exist because we perceive them to) would call homosexuals, and prostitutes liberal. they're just terms used to breed discrimination.

the bible, is a historical account (you may not believe this, but for the purposes of this argument, and because i am a Christian, i believe it is). the OLD TESTAMENT historically accounts for people stoning homosexuals and prostitutes. the NEW TESTAMENT on the other hand is a new stage of RELIGION. they don't cancel each other out, they build on each other. in the OT, God allowed his wrath to be poured out on sinners by other sinners, but in the new testament, his wrath is hell, which will be experienced for eternity upon the sinner's death. Why the change? i can't really say. i don't think God had this epiphany that he had it wrong for the first couple thousand years, i think his plan is/was too complicated for us to understand at this time. sorry if that's a cop out.

i said that CHRISTIANITY doesn't teach intolerance of homosexuals, and it doesn't. CHRISTIANITY teaches to LOVE everyone. the Old Testament existed BEFORE Christianity. Those weren't Christians, they were Jews. and I'm not a Jew, nor am i well educated about their beliefs, so i cant really talk about this.

Christ actually stopped an adulterous woman from being stoned by the Jewish Pharisees. Christ obviously was against this form of intolerance. the only thing Christ didn't tolerate was the pharisees actually. probably because they had it all wrong. stupid humans.

The new testament is an evolution of the old testament. the rules changed a bit. Christians are no longer under law (Gal. 5). This means that God wants Christians to WANT to follow the law, but the law is not going to save them, but in the OT, a person was made righteous by the law. In the NT, we are made righteous through Christ's sacrifice. "...[T]here is no condemnation for those who belong to Christ Jesus... The law of Moses could not save us, because of our sinful nature. But God put into effect a different plan to save us. He sent his own Son in a human body like ours, except that ours are sinful" (Rom. 8.1&3). The law of Moses, the stuff about stoning gays and not eating pork was fulfilled by Christ because he died without sinning. Rev. Paul Washer (you'll have to google him) has a wonderful sermon on this centered mostly around Romans 3.23 and a term he uses called "propitiation."

joseph: "You need to clarify. It sounds like you are saying the exact same thing. Circumcising a child to suit YOUR spiritual needs is by definition imposing your religion on your children."

as a free-will Christian, i believe every person should have an individual right to choose his or her religion--even my own children. i also believe there is only one right one. but if i were a Jew, i'm sure i would believe different. the moral standards of a Jew are different. I disagree with circumcising and infant for any non medical reason, but the Jews see it as a very important thing. i can understand this, but i disagree with it on a far deeper spiritual level as well. basically, I agree to disagree, if i have a Jewish friend, i'd be more concerned with his salvation than with the state of his son's penis only because, i think once he met Christ, he would understand my side. I'm choosing to fight a greater battle, but if you're not a Christian, and if you think that anti circ laws are the most important battle, i'm not sure you could understand.

i wrote, "if i were Jewish, i would find this beautiful. i would be of the mindset: 'i believe in God so much--i trust Him so much that if my son weren't part of the awesome thing, then i couldn't live because i love my son that much. and this circumcision is my way of telling God that my life is not my own. my son is not my own. and because God, You're so powerful, His life is not his own even if he doesn't realize it, so i give him to you and humble myself' When i look at it that way, it is beautiful, and I would be willing to be circumcised AS AN INFANT if i were Jewish."

this still holds true and is not meant to be some feeble attempt at political correctness. If i were a faithful Jewish person, i would circumcise my sons. the fact is: I am NOT Jewish. I'm a Christian who believes that only one faith rings true and and only one people group (the Christians) and going to make it to heaven. because i'm not a Jew, i find the Circumcision to be unethical because it does eliminate a right to choose. but when i look at it through the eyes of a devote Jew, that's entirely different. Despite my faith, i remain objective as much as possible. Christianity does not teach circumcision, it teaches baptism as a ritual only for dedication or cleansing. and the bible doesn't teach infant baptism btw.

I base my morals on my faith. If you do not share my faith, you do not have my morals. I agree to disagree. I am not Jewish, so i do not have your morals. Jews think I'm a heretic, and i think the same thing about them. lets move on. I cannot expect a Jew or any other non christian to uphold Christian standards. this attitude caused events such as religious warfare. racism. elitism. and non christian like behaviors. Judging from how He is characterized in the bible, Christ would simply let the non believer know he/she was going to hell, and then, He would weep for the non believer. maybe do a miracle to help convince but in the end all he can do is say "the choice is yours" (John Calvin would argue with me, but I think he's a heretic too).

I am called to love you regardless of your beliefs, and I do my best to do so. I'm not perfect--that's the point. i'm trying.

as for Joseph's post titled "To get back on topic," its not an entirely correct interpretation of the Bible, but interpretations can be argued and considering he's a non Christian, I'm not sure he'd be interested. If he is, he is more than welcome to PM me. i can say this:

God did make Adam perfect, but Adam ruined the perfection with the "fall" (when he and Eve ate of the tree). Foreskin was not God recognizing His mistakes, it was put there for a greater purpose. i think we can all say that foreskin holds some serious value. Perhaps, God placed it there solely for the purposes of demonstrating the covenant between man and God. and then later simply to make sex better. Song of Solomon suggests that God is a big fan of sex.

anyway, God bless you all.
shalom,
Ben

[Joseph]

...considering he's a non Christian...

Pshhhaw...

Benni, I remember when I was at the other side of the fence... it's real easy just to brush people aside because they aren't Christian.

Spit-spot... you're opinion isn't worth anything.

I was born and raised in an Evangelical Apostolic Assembly environment. Because of my father's job, we moved around, so I had a feel for numerous kinds of Christianity. My dad was one to go to people's houses for "devotions" and Bible studies. At about 20/21 I decided all churches were dramatic gossip mills. It was always "us and them." If someone in the church didn't like you it was real easy to accuse that person of "straying from the path," and all of a sudden, they were possessed or something stupid like that. It was the Salem Witch trials all over again. The "he's not Christian" line is all too familiar. But only now, I'm really NOT a Christian, so it's not as bad. I just say... "Well... he is Christian after all... you can't blame the guy..."

Just because I'm not a Christian anymore doesn't mean I didn't get around. What, did I suddenly forget all that indoctrination I went through for 20 or so years?

I've seen it all. Apostolics, Baptists, Southern-Baptists, Black Churches, 7th Day Adventists, Mormons, Catholics, Episcopalians, Jehovah's Witnesses, Presbyterians, Lutherans, UPC etc...

My particular church was into Judaism, and we often invited rabbis to speak. We had Hannukah celebrations. Some parents even made their kids wear kippots and had them grow those side-burn thingies. I wonder how many of them actually circumcised their children at hospitals and thought their child was "Jewish." When "the spirit would pour down," some people instead of shaking to the music would dance the hora. (Incedentally, our musicians knew when to switch from gospel to hava-nagila/shavaut shalom etc...)

I'm familiar with the rapture, the holy trinity, the "oneness" believers, the people who believe only in the father and the son as spirits... And every last one of them could prove their theories to me in the bible.

So like, I remain unconvinced that there is "one true religion."

I disagree. The bible DOES contradict itself, but believers like to come up with some rationale. The RATIONALE I've heard for the contradictions is different. "God was this in this time, got was that in that time." Yet, at the same time I'm supposed to believe "god is the same, yesterday, today, tomorrow and forever more." Hrm.

I just came up with the interpretations I gave you out of logic. Out of remembering OTHER things that are supposed to be true. And then, variating what people believe. (Some believe god is one, some believe god is two or three.)

So out of all of these people, out of the billions of people in the world, YOU'VE really got it, eh?

Congratulations.

I mean you've figured it all out. Good for you.

Now tell all those Christians that circumcise that they're not supposed to be doing it.

[1Taoist]

I think what Benni is trying to say is not that God is this way, then that...it's PEOPLE that are that way. God is always God, always the same. Think of it as the inverse of the child/parent relationship, where the child starts out thinking his parent is God, then slowly realizes he isn't, and finally that he is just human. The path toward God is the opposite: we start out thinking we are just human, but slowly we realize we are more, until we realize we are God.

This isn't my idea. It is an ancient concept of inner teaching. To realize God is not outside us is only the start.

To realize we are God is the only possible goal of life.

This is why our religions fail us.

[benniboy237]

I think what Benni is trying to say is not that God is this way, then that...it's PEOPLE that are that way. God is always God, always the same. Think of it as the inverse of the child/parent relationship, where the child starts out thinking his parent is God, then slowly realizes he isn't, and finally that he is just human. The path toward God is the opposite: we start out thinking we are just human, but slowly we realize we are more, until we realize we are God.

This isn't my idea. It is an ancient concept of inner teaching. To realize God is not outside us is only the start.

To realize we are God is the only possible goal of life.

This is why our religions fail us.

why is it that the Taoist always seems to get it? lol.

yea Taoist, you're pretty damn close, actually from a Taoist point of view, you're exactly right.

the only thing i'd argues is "until we realize we are God" simply because i'm a Christian, and the Christian God is very specific and part of it is, you can
become the Christian God, but you're a taoist, so this rings true in that sense.

we're all part of brahamn (i'm sure i spelled this wrong. very sorry.) when we become enlightened, we simply realize that we have been all along.

granted, this is a very elementary way to put it, but i think its suffice.

but other than that, and its really more of a perspective thing rather than an actual misunderstanding, you're correct.

God is not relative. God is. that's it. he just exists, and always has and always will. that's what makes him God. on the contrary, humans are completely fickle. our natures are constantly changing.

basically, i'd say we're born savages in a sense. we're born thinking we are God, and we seek to fulfill our needs and wants. a completely self centered ego--not to say this negatively. if babies didn't cry and act like egomaniacs, we'd never know what to do. we sorta need this for survival at first. but that kinda supports it--we're still concerned with our own survival.

as we grow, we begin to learn that the control we think we have is limited. look at this however you want, as a Calvinist, an Addict, or a Taoist, still we can't completely control the universe.

eventually, (assuming one is a Christian) he/she comes to believe that God is the source. that God is. that God was. and that God will always be. etc. etc. and that spurs on the quest to understand God, but this quest is pretty futile. because God is infinite, and we are finite. and if we ever completely, exhaustively understood God, then that would make us God. nevertheless, we've been given the Holy Spirit to help us come to more of an understanding, rather than a complete one (1 Cor 2.12)

i'm not claiming that i've got all the spiritual, theological answers. i do think i've got all the basic ones. all the ones that I need, and i do believe that things are objective. but i also understand that when it comes to the frivolous stuff--hymn vs contemporary--speaking in tongues--works--people can still differ in opinion and be completely correct, because it's frivolous.

basically, i'm taking the socrates cop out: I am the wisest only because i recognize my ignorance.

however, i don't really consider myself all that wise, that'd just be pretension. and i'd no longer be humble. and i'd be a bad Christian if i weren't humble, but that's not why i try to be humble, i try to be humble b/c i love God and i ......

it goes in circles. you get the point.

[1Taoist]

You know the problem with circles? The damn things have no end and no beginning. But they do get you from point A to B.

Good point on frivolousness. Guess two people can be wrong, too, for the same reason.

Wanted to add to the child mention: babies think they are the center of the universe but they lack consciousness of it. The wise adult knows that they are not the center of the universe because they are conscious. The sage adult realizes the center of the universe is inside him, because his consciousness is internal.

The infant thinks the world revolves around them, the adult revolves around the world, and the elderly no longer does either. The world is revolves with and without us.

[Joseph]

All this talk about "god" is based on a dubious premise:

That such a thing actually exists.

No one knows whether "god" exists or not.

It is a matter of faith.

Faith, by definition, means believing in something that cannot be proven to be true. It is irrational belief in something that cannot be rationally explained.

If it could be proven and/or explained, then it would be hard truth, and then it wouldn't be a faith. We'd all know what it was and we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Note that I'm not saying that god doesn't exist, just that nobody knows for sure whether he does or does not, that it is a matter of faith, and that you are free to believe whatever you want.

[1Taoist]

Some say "God exists because I exist". This statement is not as trivial as it may sound. It is based on the concept "I think, therefore I am."

The question becomes "Do YOU exist?". We assume we do, yet we don't seem to see God, or be able to prove such a top dog exists. Then, we try to prove we exist, and actually cannot. There exists something here in this world, and maybe that's an indicator of God. We are viewing the world BECAUSE WE are God, and therein, perhaps, is the trick. We can't find hard proof because we can't define Him as such. If the concept is holistic, or total, then god is never gonna be some old dude like Morgan Freeman walkin around talkin to a few nut-jobs. God may indeed be everything in this world.

It's like the old story of the blind men asked to feel an elephant and determine what it is: one grabs the trunk, says snake, one grabs the tail says a rat, one grabs a leg says a tree, so on and so on. Nobody gets it right.

We are all functionally blind.

If you exist, then God can too. None of us has anymore proof of ourselves than we do of God.

[1Taoist]

Another concept reflecting the act of circumcision as it relates to God:

We are designed to fail, so life can continue.

This, in my opinion, indicates the possible concept of something bigger than us (God?). If we are designed to fail individually, but continue as a whole, then God is just another name for the whole. Despite the fact that we fail to respect the penis and continue to chop off our foreskins, we continue to be born with them.

[greg_b]

I once read of a philosopher (name escapes me) who considered the fact that to get from any point A to point B required passing the mid-point between the two.

But since the distance between any two points can be divided up into an infinite number of segments, then it follows that there are an infinite number of mid-points that must be crossed.

And since infinity is without end, it is therefor impossible to ever get from point A to point B, since it would take an infinite amount of time.

I just wish that would happen during a fall or car accident or....

Cheers!

[Joseph]

Some say "God exists because I exist". This statement is not as trivial as it may sound. It is based on the concept "I think, therefore I am."

The question becomes "Do YOU exist?". We assume we do, yet we don't seem to see God, or be able to prove such a top dog exists. Then, we try to prove we exist, and actually cannot. There exists something here in this world, and maybe that's an indicator of God. We are viewing the world BECAUSE WE are God, and therein, perhaps, is the trick. We can't find hard proof because we can't define Him as such. If the concept is holistic, or total, then god is never gonna be some old dude like Morgan Freeman walkin around talkin to a few nut-jobs. God may indeed be everything in this world.

It's like the old story of the blind men asked to feel an elephant and determine what it is: one grabs the trunk, says snake, one grabs the tail says a rat, one grabs a leg says a tree, so on and so on. Nobody gets it right.

We are all functionally blind.

If you exist, then God can too. None of us has anymore proof of ourselves than we do of God.

"God exists because I exist" is begging the question again; "god" is assumed to exist. First prove that there is such a thing as god.

"There exists something here in this world, and maybe that's an indicator of God."

Why does it have to indicate "god?" Why not... aliens from other planets? Or elves? Leprechauns? Or faeries?

Trying to prove god exists is like trying to justify circumcision. You're looking for a disease for the cure.

WHY do people have to necessitate their god?

Because then everything else they know is wrong, and all that they've been living is a lie.

Circumcised men, or parents that circumcised their children in denial don't want to believe that circumcision is worthless. Lord forbid that they are wrong. Ask them why they circumcised their children, and we'll hear that long list of "reasons" we all know.

Same thing with "god." People cling to the concept of "god" as some do to the concept of circumcision. God exists, and there's all these reasons why.

God and circumcision are faiths. They aren't based on any real science. That is the whole definition of a "faith." That you believe in something that doesn't necessarily have to be proven. The minute you try to prove it, then it's not a faith anymore, and you become like Thomas.

People should believe in "god" if they want to. Not push "god" on others. (Just like circumcision!)

If you think there are medical benefits to circumcision, good for you. YOU circumcise yourself. If you believe that there is a god, then good. No one is stopping you. Just don't push it on others, or use your belief in god to look down on others.

[1Taoist]

Who is this "you" you are talking to??

[Joseph]

Who is this "you" you are talking to??

If I remember correctly, it was YOU spoke to "you" first.

"If you exist, then God can too."

Don't ask ME, I'm HORRIBLE with names.

[greg_b]

Let me see....

"The question becomes 'Do YOU exist?'".

"If you exist, then God can too."

And a well known philosopher said "I think, therefor I am" or something like that. So does it follow then that:

"I think, therefor God is?"

[1Taoist]

The vernacular of statements like "Do you exist?" is extistential and hypothetical. They aren't addressing anyone in particular, and are open for general interpretation.

Statements like "If you think there are medical benefits to circumcision, good for you" are not of the same vernacular.

Please understand the difference, because it applies.

And FTR, circumcision is NOT a faith. That's very misguided. Circumcision is a very real physical act, often times with no belief behind it. Faith is a belief, intangible and with little or no basis in the physical world. Acts of faith, or works of faith aren't even tangible, because there is no corresponding physical result that can be proven to be connected. Faith, as in God, cannot be shown to exist. Circumcision, last time I checked, can be.

Poor analogy.

[Joseph]

My question is, if there is such a huge and powerful being, what the hell does his existence depend on any one human being's thoughts or existence?

If there is/are god(s), and it/they is/are omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent, then it/they exist(s) besides what any one man can think of it/them.

How full of ourselves our we to think we can limit god(s') existence(s) to ours.

(If such a thing exists.)

If it/they do(es)n't, then it/they do(es)n't, and our thoughts can only will it/them to exist within the confines of our imagination.

WHETHER god(s) exist(s) or not is an entirely different matter. This can be anybody's guess. Because this is something we do not know, then we have to BELIEVE either way. Therefore, to believe that a god exists or not necessitates some kind of faith.

Belief in god is a faith. And yes, belief that there is no god is also a faith.

But that goes for anything that can't be consistently proven.

People should be free to believe whatever it is they want, as long as they aren't forcing their faiths on others, and as long as they're not using it to justify the mutilation of non-concenting individuals.

[Joseph]

Actually, no, it is quite evident to whomever is reading this thread that I was speaking in a general sense.

Circumcision is not an act of faith?

I'm afraid you have entire Jewish, Muslim and Christian populations to convince.

[Joseph]

>yawn<

I'm really quite tired of talking about what could be anybody's guess.

You guys can quibble amongst yourselves.

I'm done.

[1Taoist]

Thank God.

[benniboy237]

big rule of debate is not to argue about "religious" or "spiritual" issues. we already broke that one. :(

but it always happens.

"god exists because i exist" is by definition, "begging the question," but it answers the question.

the issue at this point is not whether or not god(s) exists, but how is one defining a god?

I define divinity by Christian standards, which gives a very specific picture of what makes God the God.

If there is/are god(s), and it/they is/are omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent, then it/they exist(s) besides what any one man can think of it/them.--joseph

this is a limited idea. greek mythology teaches that gods weren't omniscient or omnipresent
but Taoism teaches that the individual is in fact a part of the greater whole. "all living things are a part of 'god'" (god isn't usually the word most Taoists use though--words are social constructs)

Christianity teaches that the individual can't be part of God because that would make God part of the individual and then he would therefore cease to be God, BUT the Christian God has put part of himself (actually all of himself, a manifestation of himself, this is a bit hard for some to grasp) into the individual. Believers have the Holy Spirit (1 cor 2.12).

each faith defines its deity differently. this causes room for vagueness when using terms like "god"

assume that "god" simply is something more powerful than humans. well then, hurricanes are gods (and gustav was a bitch--from louisiana here). so are earthquakes and all natural disasters.

then there are the 2 opposing forces. Christians like to call them "good" and "evil" but those are vague words too. what is "good"? Christianity teaches that nothing is good but God. however, few realize or practice this.

on a purely philosophical level: "I exist therefore god(s) exist" is true. ONLY because we perceive god(s) to exist. I.E. whether or not an actual god exists, it is still in the thinker's mind, and so it at least exists within the mind of one individual.

well this begs the question, "what if the individual says, there is no god" This idea still provides the existence of god in perception alone. why? because, to make claim that god does not exist, suggests that the individual has explored all knowledge/spirituality exhaustively and found no god. but, if the individual has explored all knowledge exhaustively, this would by definition(christian) make him/her god.

an "atheist" makes claim that he/she is infinitely intelligent without realizing it. which by default means that he/she is making claim to be god; however, he/she is claim that no such god exists.

so to be and "atheist" is to say, "I do not exist"

and then you're just a nihilist. or are you? (sorry that was a bit of a joke)

and so, to conclude:

the opposite of Theism is not A-Theism; the opposite of Theism is Anti-Theism. or agnosticism.

joseph is right, we CANNOT know if a god exists outside of perception. it is a faith thing.

contrarily, i cannot prove to someone that God (christian) exists, but because of personal experience, i do not doubt it. God has proven Himself to me, but I can't speak for anyone else. (and no, this does not mean i think i'm special that Big-ole-God would come to lil-ole-me just to make me believe. I think everyone is special. God has/will come to everyone (ps. 50.1) and tenderly call our names while we are in the desert (Hosea 2.14). be quite so you can hear).

shalom,
ben

[1Taoist]

interesting concepts, Benni.

As I said earlier in the post, athesim and theism are really the same thing. I would like to challenge the idea of the opposite of atheism being agnosticism, respectfully. The opposite of something is not nothing. Theism is a belief in something, as is atheism. Agnosticism is non-belief. The lack of belief. This is why atheism and theism are the same: they are circular. Circular means something turns into it's opposite AND BACK AGAIN. One cannot ever be separated from it's opposite because it leads back to itself. Non-belief does not lead to belief, nor vice-versa. Anti-theism is not agnostic- it is still a belief. It is a belief against itself.

The opposite of life is not death, the opposite of death is birth. The most interesting answer I ever heard for the opposite of life...is cancer. Cancer takes away our quality of life until we have none. We die anyway, whether we get cancer or not.

People who are anti-abortion claim anyone who allows it is "pro" abortion. This isn't true. However, anyone against it MUST have someone "for it", or their position can't persist. No one is "for" abortion. This is why they changed their position to "pro" life. This implies anyone who has an abortion is anti-life. Tough argument, because it is the cessation of life in-utero. Thus the advent of the term "pro-choice", which implies anyone against it is "anti-choice", which seems to fly in the face of free-will, a universal observation of existence.

This is why anyone against something must be careful, lest they persist the existence of their opposite- in such case "pro-abortionists". And why "pro-lifers" are observed to bomb clinics and shoot doctors who perform them.

Those anti-circ should take heed: the circle leads to pro-circ. The idea is to step out of the circle and change the concept. Thus, the advent of the term intactivism.

When we reconcile opposites, we have choice. The opposite of circ isn't no belief either way. It is anti-circ. When we reconcile that both exist as part of the circle, we can choose, and jump out of the circle.

[1Taoist]

If we don't reconcile opposites, we are compelled toward our opposite, and end up being part of what we condemn.

Kinda like when we condemn others for invading sovereign countries. Or Larry Craig calling Clinton a "nasty, bad, naughty boy." Or restoring our foreskin then re-circ'ing.