Melkite/Might 4 Right
#21
(12-21-2015, 05:13 PM)Papist Wrote: And yet, a molehill remains a molehill. You think you have proven that it is a big deal, but you simply have not. The only way that it would be a big deal is if the perfect attainment of sexual pleasure were some unqualified good without which it life would be meaningless. You have yet to prove that point.

I haven't proven it to you, and I'm acknowledging there is nothing I can say that will prove it to you.  As long as you believe the foreskin is merely a flap of extra skin, then we are thinking on two entirely different paradigms on this subject.
Reply
#22
(12-21-2015, 02:54 PM)Papist Wrote: Well, Melkite is circumcision as evidence against the Judeo-Christian God. The underlying assumption of his argument is that if God is good he wouldn't allow circumcision. What Melkite is failing to understand that is that God might require circumcision for the sake of higher/spiritual goods as in the case of the Old Testament. Unlike non-circumcision, spiritual goods are good in an unqualified sense.

Wow! Papist hit the mark right out of the gate. Melkite you should read closely what Papist has written here. He is pointing out the underlying fallacy in the premise of your argument. It would be a waste of time for everyone to follow you any further down this rabbit trail.

(12-21-2015, 02:54 PM)Papist Wrote: I like Melkite quite a bit, but there something amiss when someone grants this level importance to he foreskin.

I again have to agree with Papist here. Your hyper-focus on circumcision says to me that your problem is not with God. I'm not a health professional but this seems to intricate some form of childhood sexual trauma. You should see a qualified professional about this. Any further discussion on this matter will not be healthy for any of us.
Reply
#23
(12-21-2015, 06:11 PM)Might_4_Right Wrote:
(12-21-2015, 02:54 PM)Papist Wrote: Well, Melkite is circumcision as evidence against the Judeo-Christian God. The underlying assumption of his argument is that if God is good he wouldn't allow circumcision. What Melkite is failing to understand that is that God might require circumcision for the sake of higher/spiritual goods as in the case of the Old Testament. Unlike non-circumcision, spiritual goods are good in an unqualified sense.

Wow! Papist hit the mark right out of the gate. Melkite you should read closely what Papist has written here. He is pointing out the underlying fallacy in the premise of your argument. It would be a waste of time for everyone to follow you any further down this rabbit trail.

(12-21-2015, 02:54 PM)Papist Wrote: I like Melkite quite a bit, but there something amiss when someone grants this level importance to he foreskin.

I again have to agree with Papist here. Your hyper-focus on circumcision says to me that your problem is not with God. I'm not a health professional but this seems to intricate some form of childhood sexual trauma. You should see a qualified professional about this. Any further discussion on this matter will not be healthy for any of us.

Really, that's it? I thought you were going to show me why I was wrong.  With all due respect to Papist, and to you, there is no fallacy in my argument.  I have laid out perfectly logically why circumcision is irrational and why a rational person should reject that circumcision comes from God.  The response from Papist that you quoted is essentially 'well, God had a higher purpose, and that can't be judged, so we shouldn't question it any further.'  Sorry, that's not a rebuttal, that's a tacit admission that you have no rebuttal to my logic.  I understand you disagree with the importance I place on the issue, and I accept that it doesn't have to be as important to you as it is to me, or important to you at all.  But you have given me no logical response as to why I should believe other than as I do about circumcision.  So, I've already accepted that I cannot convince Papist.  If you are accepting that you have nothing to persuade me to change my opinion, do you want to move onto Yahweh the war god in full force?
Reply
#24
Melkite, I think I hear what you're saying about circumcision. Any altering of function, no matter how small, creates dysfunction, and I think on that point we would agree. I'm not sure the damage would be as severe as what you're claiming, but I'm willing to acquiesce on that point because I don't have enough information to refute it and based on what I know it certainly seems plausible.

As for commanding it, I can see that your questions/rejection of the Abrahamic Convenant is wrapped up in so many layers. I am familiar with most of what you're talking about - I went to a Protestant Bible College for awhile and actually took some classes that talked about these topics. I even wrote a paper on the parallels between the Hebrew and Babylonian Creation Myths. The story of Noah's Ark is all wrapped up in that too, it's actually a fascinating topic.

But I suspect you're failing to see the forest through the trees. The Bible - both the Hebrew scriptures and the New Testament - are the product of dozens if not hundreds of writers, editors, politicians and cultures. No one who has spent any time studying it can deny that.

But why does that matter? Oral history is valid, and I wouldn't totally discount a text, a story, an instruction simply because it was put to papyrus later. I'm just trying to understand where you're coming from.
Reply
#25
(12-21-2015, 06:11 PM)Might_4_Right Wrote: I again have to agree with Papist here. Your hyper-focus on circumcision says to me that your problem is not with God. I'm not a health professional but this seems to intricate some form of childhood sexual trauma. You should see a qualified professional about this. Any further discussion on this matter will not be healthy for any of us.

Btw, the childhood sexual trauma is that I had my fucking genitals mutilated against my will.
Reply
#26
(12-21-2015, 10:04 PM)PrairieMom Wrote: Melkite, I think I hear what you're saying about circumcision. Any altering of function, no matter how small, creates dysfunction, and I think on that point we would agree. I'm not sure the damage would be as severe as what you're claiming, but I'm willing to acquiesce on that point because I don't have enough information to refute it and based on what I know it certainly seems plausible.

Thank you for understanding that, and thank you for not having your son/s circumcised!  I agree with you to a degree on the point about the severity of damage.  Different doctors do different things.  Some doctors leave a tremndous amount of inner foreskin and don't touch the frenulum, so that the amputation of the ridged bands are the only significant structural damage.  As far as sensitivity goes, it's possible in that situation for men to have a significant amount of sensitivity remain, depending on the instrument used.  Other doctors try to remove as much of the inner foreskin as possible, bring the outer skin within a few millimeters on the adult from the coronal ridge.  That man is left with a virtually numb stick.  There are so many variables that can affect the final outcome, that circumcisions are like snowflakes, although there do seem to be clusters of similarities.

Quote:As for commanding it, I can see that your questions/rejection of the Abrahamic Convenant is wrapped up in so many layers. I am familiar with most of what you're talking about - I went to a Protestant Bible College for awhile and actually took some classes that talked about these topics. I even wrote a paper on the parallels between the Hebrew and Babylonian Creation Myths. The story of Noah's Ark is all wrapped up in that too, it's actually a fascinating topic.

Yes!  You get it!  I don't think I did as well of a job explaining my doubts on the inspiration of scripture, but because of everything I mentioned, for me that acts as corroborating evidence for my rejection of circumcision as being a true commandment from God. 

Quote:But I suspect you're failing to see the forest through the trees. The Bible - both the Hebrew scriptures and the New Testament - are the product of dozens if not hundreds of writers, editors, politicians and cultures. No one who has spent any time studying it can deny that.

But why does that matter? Oral history is valid, and I wouldn't totally discount a text, a story, an instruction simply because it was put to papyrus later. I'm just trying to understand where you're coming from.

No, I understand that.  And I recognize that a lot of this stuff has an oral tradition behind it.  I don't mean to suggest all of it was invented at the time it was written.  But I think we can use the archaeological evidence to get a better understanding of what is taking place in the Bible.  That is, after all, the purpose of Catholic hermeneutics, isn't it?  So, for example, we are told that circumcision started with Abraham in the Bible.  Yet we know from archaeology that the Egyptians were practicing circumcision independently.  The Bible tells us that all of the oral history from Adam down to Moses was written by Moses, so he is at best the earliest written record.  The Bible also tells us that the Hebrews were slaves in Egypt at the time of Moses.  Archaeology tells us that the Egyptians circumcised not only priests, but their slaves.  Circumcision in Egypt was a mark of slavery, either to a human master in the case of workers, or a divine master in the case of priests.  Much of the Jahwist literature emphasizes the Israelites as being slaves to God.  Logically, it makes more sense that there was no Abrahamic covenant requiring circumcision (after all, the Elohist recording of the Abrahamic covenant is one of animal sacrifice, and circumcision is no where mentioned) but rather, the Hebrews were circumcised as slaves in Egypt, and the practice was sanctified by Moses, the new cult of Yahweh leader, and thus circumcision made its way into the hagiography.
Reply
#27
(12-21-2015, 10:07 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(12-21-2015, 06:11 PM)Might_4_Right Wrote: I again have to agree with Papist here. Your hyper-focus on circumcision says to me that your problem is not with God. I'm not a health professional but this seems to intricate some form of childhood sexual trauma. You should see a qualified professional about this. Any further discussion on this matter will not be healthy for any of us.

Btw, the childhood sexual trauma is that I had my f***ing genitals mutilated against my will.

That could possible be it. Mekite it wouldn't surprise me in the least that you have deep emotional memories of that terrible childhood trauma. I wold get to a good hypno-therapist to help regress you to that trauma point so that you can reintegrate that traumatised infant that has been frozen from properly integrating into your adult personality. Until this is done you will remain frozen were you now stand on the faith but I advise you do it quickly your time is short.
Reply
#28
(12-21-2015, 10:49 PM)Might_4_Right Wrote:
(12-21-2015, 10:07 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(12-21-2015, 06:11 PM)Might_4_Right Wrote: I again have to agree with Papist here. Your hyper-focus on circumcision says to me that your problem is not with God. I'm not a health professional but this seems to intricate some form of childhood sexual trauma. You should see a qualified professional about this. Any further discussion on this matter will not be healthy for any of us.

Btw, the childhood sexual trauma is that I had my f***ing genitals mutilated against my will.

That could possible be it. Mekite it wouldn't surprise me in the least that you have deep emotional memories of that terrible childhood trauma. I wold get to a good hypno-therapist to help regress you to that trauma point so that you can reintegrate that traumatised infant that has been frozen from properly integrating into your adult personality. Until this is done you will remain frozen were you now stand on the faith but I advise you do it quickly your time is short.

I've actually tried hypnotherapy once.  Maybe the doctor was a quack, but I wasn't able to get anything from it about circumcision. He actually was trying to do a last life regression because he thought maybe I had been castrated in a previous life.  I was able to remember all the way back to my conception, and then everything went dark.  If there is a such thing as reincarnation, I must be on my first incarnation.

What do you mean my time is short?  Not to make fun, but Jar Jar Binks no know HaMashiach comma backa tomorrow, do Jar Jar?
Reply
#29
(12-21-2015, 10:56 PM)Melkite Wrote: I've actually tried hypnotherapy once.  Maybe the doctor was a quack, but I wasn't able to get anything from it about circumcision. He actually was trying to do a last life regression because he thought maybe I had been castrated in a previous life.  I was able to remember all the way back to my conception, and then everything went dark.  If there is a such thing as reincarnation, I must be on my first incarnation.

What do you mean my time is short?  Not to make fun, but Jar Jar Binks no know HaMashiach comma backa tomorrow, do Jar Jar?

LoL! You actually do Jar Jar Binks a lot better than I do. :) It's no secret that you are one of those hi IQ guys put that over abundance of grey power into doing a little research. I'm sure you could find a highly trained and qualified therapist to help you recover those childhood memories it wont be easy. But I know you have what it takes to do it.

Believe it or not I really do want to see you saved. All I know for sure is that time is short Melkite. Oh and please do this little mizpah for me and order something from Tracy store. I promise you will receive the necessary grace to find the answer to you circumcision trauma and give you the best chance to be saved because I do love you Melkite.
Reply
#30
I can't without resolving everything, or else I'd be lying to myself.  I went to confession and communion last week, and I felt dead inside because deep down I don't really believe it.

I had a dream about my circumcision when I was two or three.  I was at a drive in movie theater, and these two guys came walking towards me.  Their pants opened and one of those plastic cup holders that you would hang from the car windows in the 80's floated over the head of their penises, skin was pulled over the cup holder and cut off.  Describes exactly the procedure as was done to me.  I remember feeling like they were embarrassed and emasculated by it.  There is no resolution.  Unless God is going to not only give me my foreskin back, but restore me to wholeness for all the past 35 years and rewrite all my memories, despair is my only honest option.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)