Refuting St. Augustine's Views on Sex
#31
Love cats, love dogs. Love beavers, love owls. But I insist that

there
is
nothing
cuter
than...


a
baby
ellyphant!

[Image: 16-24-610x644.jpg]
Save
T h e   D u d e t t e   A b i d e s
[-] The following 1 user Likes VoxClamantis's post:
  • Optatus Cleary
Reply
#32
Vox raises a good point about owls...and there is a lack of owl representation.

Courtesy of my boyfriend:

[Image: QBwHWkL.gif]
[-] The following 1 user Likes In His Love's post:
  • VoxClamantis
Reply
#33
(11-09-2017, 05:38 PM)SacraCor714 Wrote: If circumcision is evil, as you say it is, why did God require the men of the Old Testament to be circumcised? Why would He ask them to mutilate something He had designed and created? Why didn't have them, say, cut a slit in their right ear or brand themselves with a sign or something? That way the women could participate too!

The Old Testament version of circumcision was RADICALLY different from what is done now (and has been done since post-Temple Jews re-vamped the procedure). See http://www.fisheaters.com/circumcision.html


Quote:My fiance is circumcised, but he thinks that circumcision is cruel and wishes his parents had let him make the decision for himself. The only thing I would say is good about circumcision is that it makes your man-part (supposedly, how would I know?) easier to keep clean.
 
And women with large breasts wouldn't have to clean under them if they just had them chopped off. We could chop off our outer ears so we wouldn't have to clean them, too. You see the (bad) logic in all that.


Quote:Is an uncircumcised penis really that more pleasurable for both man and woman than a circumcised one? Why is this the case? Doesn't the foreskin retract during arousal anyway and renders the penis pretty much the same as a circumcised one?
 
See the page I linked to, including the second page linked to from that page.
Save
T h e   D u d e t t e   A b i d e s
[-] The following 1 user Likes VoxClamantis's post:
  • Melkite
Reply
#34
(11-09-2017, 05:38 PM)SacraCor714 Wrote: With regards to circumcision....I do not know much about it since I am not a guy. I was thinking the other day about whether or not I should circumcise our sons when they are born. I think it is a cruel and painful thing to do to a little baby who has just gone through the trauma of being born (and has probably already been poked with 20 needles from "progressive" doctors pushing immunizations before the kid's umbilical cord is even cut).

If circumcision is evil, as you say it is, why did God require the men of the Old Testament to be circumcised? Why would He ask them to mutilate something He had designed and created? Why didn't have them, say, cut a slit in their right ear or brand themselves with a sign or something? That way the women could participate too!

My fiance is circumcised, but he thinks that circumcision is cruel and wishes his parents had let him make the decision for himself. The only thing I would say is good about circumcision is that it makes your man-part (supposedly, how would I know?) easier to keep clean.

Is an uncircumcised penis really that more pleasurable for both man and woman than a circumcised one? Why is this the case? Doesn't the foreskin retract during arousal anyway and renders the penis pretty much the same as a circumcised one?
I personally reject that God ever actually required it.  I can't prove it, and it may be more of a mental crutch for me than an actual truth, but for the time being, I can't love, worship, respect, obey, trust a God that would require it.  But, as Vox mentioned, if God did actually require it, what he required was a little less bad than what is practiced today.  If God did require it, then we don't know why he demanded they mutilate themselves, but the only way it could have gotten there is if he did design it and create it.  So, if God required it, he required them to mutilate something he designed and created.

The foreskin is a two-surfaced layer of skin.  There's the outer skin, and the inner skin that is exposed as it is rolled back.  That inner lining, particularly at the ring in the opening, contains the vast majority of erogenous nerve endings in the penis.  What one finds pleasurable is unquantifiable, but what can be quantified is that circumcision eliminates 50-80% of the physical sensitivity of the penis.  Men circumcised as adults have compared the difference in sensation to being made completely color blind after seeing a full range of color.  Unfortunately, because the majority of nerve endings are concentrated at the tip of the foreskin when it is rolled forward, even the ancient Jewish circumcision would have eliminated many of them.  Instead of being a 50-80% lost, it would have maybe been a 50-70% loss.  Most of what is lost to modern circumcision that was not lost to ancient Jewish circumcision is outer foreskin, where there are no erogenous nerve endings.  Ancient Jewish circumcision and modern circumcision would be almost identical in sensory loss.
I have resigned myself to the reality that I shall have no peace or joy should I continue to exist for eternity.  The question of deism or Christianity no longer matters.  I hope that Christianity is a farce, and that when I die, my consciousness will cease to exist.  In the meantime, I ask the Theotokos to be at my side at my judgement and ask her to intercede to, as I beg, Christ to have mercy on me and to allow me to cease to exist when I die.
Reply
#35
Melkite, I don't mean to make your struggles seem insignificant, but I would like to help you put them into perspective a bit. With the anger, lack of trust, your feelings that you can't love/respect/worship a God who would allow circumcision, etc, is it really worth potentially losing your soul over a tiny piece of foreskin?
Reply
#36
It's not a "tiny piece of foreskin," though. It's enough skin to cover an index card, and that skin carries the male body's most sensitive nerve endings, ones designed to perceive sexual pleasure.

I obviously don't think anyone should lose his soul over anything, of course; I'm just clarifying that what's removed during modern circumcision isn't a small matter or unimportant.
T h e   D u d e t t e   A b i d e s
Reply
#37
(11-10-2017, 01:21 AM)VoxClamantis Wrote: It's not a "tiny piece of foreskin," though. It's enough skin to cover an index card, and that skin carries the male body's most sensitive nerve endings, ones designed to perceive sexual pleasure.

I obviously don't think anyone should lose his soul over anything, of course; I'm just clarifying that what's removed during modern circumcision isn't a small matter or unimportant.

Oh, wow. Why on earth do they remove so much? I heard that back in OT times, it was the equivalent of trimming a nail.
Reply
#38
(11-10-2017, 01:27 AM)In His Love Wrote: Oh, wow. Why on earth do they remove so much? I heard that back in OT times, it was the equivalent of trimming a nail.

It was never the equivalent of trimming a nail, that's for sure. You don't experience bad pain, bleed, and risk infection when you properly trim a nail (the glans is the male equivalent of the clitoris, and the foreskin is the equivalent of the clitoral hood, so you can imagine what it must feel like. It's in no way a little thing, and that it's done to newborns is terrible).

But what's done now is tons worse than the OT procedure, and the reason is because post-Temple Jews didn't want men doing what some Jews did, which was to pull on what was lweft of their foreskins until, over time, it came to resemble the foreskin of the uncircumcised. I Corinthians 7:18 alludes to the practice in passing: "Is any man called, being circumcised? let him not procure uncircumcision. Is any man called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised."

Circumcision by a Mohel
This baby is screaming in agony


Medical Circumcision
Even with a bit of anesthesia
(something that is not at all always done!),
this baby is in agony

An aside re. Jewish religious circumcision

T h e   D u d e t t e   A b i d e s
Reply
#39
Well, that just shows how uneducated I am on the subject, then. I just don't like seeing Melkite undergoing so much disturbance over something that will seem minor in the face of Eternity.

Man, just the thumbnails themselves look gruesome. Also, why does that rabbi have his mouth on that baby's genitals? How is this allowed? People who do this to girls (both the mutilation and the mouth-to-genital contact) face criminal charges.
Reply
#40
(11-10-2017, 12:40 AM)Melkite Wrote: I personally reject that God ever actually required it. 

God requires that each and every one of us die.

A fortiori, death is clearly a far worse punishment, and somehow I don't think you would have a terrible time seeing that death is a just punishment for sin, and that demanding it of us in no way makes God unmerciful, or unjust.

In my own case, I have no personal grudges, and certainly in no way feel that I am less a man or that I was robbed of something.

I would happily undergo whatever God demanded of me, be it joyful or painful, because He is God, and that means He knows what is best for me, far better than I do, or any one else, and what will best lead to the salvation of my soul and an increase in His extrinsic glory. He demands nothing impossible or unreasonable of me, give me the grace to suffer what I must, and merit heaven. That's far greater than any material thing.
[-] The following 3 users Like MagisterMusicae's post:
  • Dominicus, Florus, In His Love
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)