The Conspiracy To Discredit Christ as a Myth and to change Christianity into "do what thou wilt"

originally posted by: Akragon

originally posted by: maes2

originally posted by: Akragon

a reply to: maes2



This may be true, but what does circumcision have to do with anything?



Do you believe hacking off a part of your junk makes God happy for some strange reason?

well I meant God wanted Abraham for circumcision of his sons. This is written in old testament. Genesis. It is sign of covenant some how. But it is omitted from Christianity oddly. So that Jews can say Christians are out of covenant because of this ! While even muslims do it !!

And of course you do realise we don't live in the desert anymore? Or at least most of us...



The only reason it was required to hack your junk off was because of infection of the area when sand and bacteria gets in there... The people of that time had no clue as to what was sanitary... Which is the same reason why Pork and shellfish were banned... they didn't know that meat from a pig needs to be well done not just seared...



Have you also noticed that we don't go around killing gay people, or wiccans... or bratty children?



The OT was not God speaking to people first off... and secondly most of it is so outdated that it no longer applies anyways...

may be right about the infection but it was done for other reasons at the time. Giving up the tip was a way to tame the spirit of the heathens. It worked for a long time and still does to some extent but like most psy measures it is overcome after a while and new ways are brought into use.

a reply to: deadeyedick

Pffhahaha... Yeah that sounds right...

Make it more attractive to females... That just might make guys not want to have sex...

such silliness...

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: deadeyedick

Pffhahaha... Yeah that sounds right...

Make it more attractive to females... That just might make guys not want to have sex...

such silliness...

Actually, circumcision was originally regarded as identification of being Jewish. That's all.

There was no thought in that time of sanitary reasons. Remember Moses and his wife Zipporah when he had their sons circumcised? She threw the foreskin in his face.

But it goes back to Jacob and his sons, making themselves different than the Canaanites. The story of their sister Dina being kidnapped and raped by a young man from Sheckem and Jacob was going to appease them by saying the young man could marry his young daughter after, Levi and Simeon convinced the men that before they allowed their sister to marry, that they could not allow her marriage to uncircumcised men, so the men of the city were circumcised and as they were still lying in bed, Simeon and Levi went in and killed them all.

So it was an early custom, merely as a sign of identification. But Shi'ites take swords to their children's foreheads and cut them. If you think circumcision is nasty, what about Shi'ites today with the sword scar in their foreheads?

a reply to: WarminIndy

So you're saying men of that day walked around with their winky hanging out?

a reply to: WarminIndy

Circumcision was and is a way to make one of our first sensations be pain in my opinion. I don't remember what it felt like but I'm sure it didn't feel very good.

How nice of your god to force pain on newborn babies. There's no practical use for circumcision at all that justifies cutting a babies reproductive organ at birth.

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: WarminIndy

So you're saying men of that day walked around with their winky hanging out?

LOL, no.

It was identification of their covenant with God. Do you think God can't see winkies?

It's not about other people seeing it, it's about your parents raising you with Jewish identity. Some Jews today are saying it is no longer necessary. And that's what Paul meant by "circumcision is of the heart". That means that you can still love God with your heart and you don't need to circumcise the flesh any more.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: WarminIndy

Circumcision was and is a way to make one of our first sensations be pain in my opinion. I don't remember what it felt like but I'm sure it didn't feel very good.

How nice of your god to force pain on newborn babies. There's no practical use for circumcision at all that justifies cutting a babies reproductive organ at birth.

I never implied there was a practical purpose, I am just telling you the historical context.

Yes, terrible thing, but isn't it also terrible to slice the foreheads of Shi'ite children for the sake of Allah?

a reply to: WarminIndy

Of course it's terrible, but what Allah orders doesn't negate the fact that your god ordered something just as cruel and inhumane.

originally posted by: WarminIndy

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: WarminIndy

So you're saying men of that day walked around with their winky hanging out?

LOL, no.

It was identification of their covenant with God. Do you think God can't see winkies?

It's not about other people seeing it, it's about your parents raising you with Jewish identity. Some Jews today are saying it is no longer necessary. And that's what Paul meant by "circumcision is of the heart". That means that you can still love God with your heart and you don't need to circumcise the flesh any more.

Kinda reinforces the fact that the OT God was a nutjob.... don't ya think?

pun intended

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: WarminIndy

Circumcision was and is a way to make one of our first sensations be pain in my opinion. I don't remember what it felt like but I'm sure it didn't feel very good.

How nice of your god to force pain on newborn babies. There's no practical use for circumcision at all that justifies cutting a babies reproductive organ at birth.

It kind of hurts when babies go through teething also, but is that ok because evolution forced it onto them?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Considering there are far more people on earth who believe in God, and there always have been... the burden of proof is on the one who holds a view contrary to what the majority has believed since the dawn of time. The Atheist I speak of is one of the most revered textual critics in America, maybe even the world, so he isn't just some guy who doesn't believe. He has done the research and has concluded that it proves beyond any reasonable doubt that Jesus was a real person. The reason he is an atheist is because he believes that the New Testament was corrupted over time, and that the claims of Jesus being God in the flesh aren't true... and I disagree. If you are so interested in the topic, research for yourself, because nothing I can say or show you would change your mind, because you are a contrarian.

a reply to: WarminIndy

You're comparing teething to getting part of your penis cut off? Teething has a good end result, it allows you to chew food, circumcision has no good end result that justifies it happening.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

erm... nevermind

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Actually, the process of circumcision has multiple applications. From a religious standpoint, it numbs one of the most highly nerved pieces of flesh in the body. It helps a man control his urges, as sex is not as highly pleasurable. This, no doubt, was part of the intention, as the sex and religion shrines were popping up all over the place at that time.

From a medical standpoint, it is definitely cleaner, as all manner of things get trapped in the foreskin, especially if you lived then and probably didn't sport elastic undies.

The OP is right, there is an element of "it's okay because Christ forgave me" which is present in the modern western church. Also, others comments on military service and the thou shalt not kill commandment were spot on. But one thing I think we all understand, is that perfection will always allude us. Never will we get it all figured out. I agree that it is a negative thing to limit yourself by not doing what the Bible preaches. But judging others by a certain scale is also very dangerous, as the Bible says you will be held to the same standard. It is right to pursue correction, and as a christian correction should be accepted as a gift. This is also what the Bible says. But love is tantamount, according to Yeshua. They asked Him which was the most important of commandments, and He responded to love your G-d, and a close second to love thy neighbor as you do yourself. Now who among us upholds these traditions to their fullest? I haven't.

Anyways, I second a lot of the opinions expressed. I agree we should do better, and it is right to correct a man backsliding or when you see a brother doing the opposite of what the Bible says, especially if He is a believer. But love is what opens the door. Love is what stokes the fire. My whole family is military. I agree they shouldn't kill. But I love them. I could not imagine a heaven where my dad is not there. This is why Yeshua's sacrifice was necessary. It is impossible for us to do right, all of the time. For most I would say it's a miracle if we make it one day. This is the reality. I believe that if you can hold true to His word and make a lasting commitment, then you will only be blessed more because of it. Correct us, brother/sister. Teach us the right way from a loving place so that we get more out of life. But make sure love is the reason you do it. Nothing drives a person further away then a downward glance. Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those that trespass against us. I have fought the same battles. It is always because I love the people I was fighting with, and I wanted Psalms 23 for them as badly as I wanted it for myself. We just fall short sometimes. But He's always there to pick you up. Just gotta reach out your hand. And for that we should be thankful.

An interesting point that may or may not be relevant to some: In the Bible, it says that He cursed the ground for our sake. Think about that. In the context given, that would mean, according to my interpretation, that He did it for our benefit. How did it benefit us? To teach us the consequences of unrighteous actions. So every time you do something wrong, you receive the consequence of your wrong action. This does not sound like a "nut job" but a loving parent. It is we that are crazy and spoiled and foolish. None of the things He's telling us to do are unreasonable. In fact, the world would be a much better place. Maybe that's the point. Ever spend five minutes with an unruly kid that doesn't get disciplined? Ever feel like strangling them at any point during those five minutes? If so, then thank G-d tonight. You didn't get strangled, either. You're better off with Him, trust me. Evil isn't trying to save you.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: WarminIndy

Circumcision was and is a way to make one of our first sensations be pain in my opinion. I don't remember what it felt like but I'm sure it didn't feel very good.

How nice of your god to force pain on newborn babies. There's no practical use for circumcision at all that justifies cutting a babies reproductive organ at birth.

what do u care? i am "cut" you want to absorb my pain? lol!! i'm sure everyone will say they don't remember it.

who cares? you people focus on who is cut? like male babies.
pretty weird, ya think??

hey! you have a tat? or a piercing? should i give a rats?

a reply to: Akragon
Of course I believe in the God of Moses.
But You are right. OT is rewritten by other persons throughout history. It is mixed with superstitions. Moreover main language of OT is Hebrew. It is mistranslated into English. People are reading the mistranslated OT in English. While I see signs of Jesus in original text of OT, in Hebrew.
OT is definitely mistranslated in order to clean signs of Jesus. I am seeing it with my own eyes.
The Christian people who still speak in Aramaic in Syria are killed by terrorists. Aramaic an old language. It is the language of Jesus. I can guess from where those terrorists are controlled.
They do not have any doubt to clean signs of Jesus. While it is done in front of eyes of those people who claim they are Christians.
You may not understand me. But Jesus is still alone. He has no true follower. He never had enough true followers.

But religion is a mythology, only difference is that in ancient mythology (religions) no one alive believes, while in today's mythology called religion there are still some who believe in virgin birth, make river into vine and many other mythology tales. Interestingly enough, many of those stories are in ancient mythology already...

ps. Doin' my part of conspiracy - educating children - how scary

originally posted by: OptimusSubprime
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Considering there are far more people on earth who believe in God, and there always have been... the burden of proof is on the one who holds a view contrary to what the majority has believed since the dawn of time. The Atheist I speak of is one of the most revered textual critics in America, maybe even the world, so he isn't just some guy who doesn't believe. He has done the research and has concluded that it proves beyond any reasonable doubt that Jesus was a real person. The reason he is an atheist is because he believes that the New Testament was corrupted over time, and that the claims of Jesus being God in the flesh aren't true... and I disagree. If you are so interested in the topic, research for yourself, because nothing I can say or show you would change your mind, because you are a contrarian.

You just employed an Argumentum ad populum fallacy. Just because everyone believes something doesn't make it right, nor does it shift the burden of proof to anyone else. YOU still need to prove that what you believe is true.

the burden of proof is on the one who holds a view contrary to what the majority has believed since the dawn of time.

This has NEVER been true. The burden of proof ALWAYS lies on the one making the claim.

I still don't care about the credentials of that atheist. AGAIN you are employing a fallacy, Argument from authority. How about producing some of this evidence that this man has employed to come to this conclusion? Jesus may very well have existed just as your guy says, but his opinion means jack squat without the supporting evidence he used to come to that conclusion.

And finally you call me a contrarian which is untrue, not to mention it is jumping to conclusions and is an Ad hominem, ANOTHER fallacy. I'm a skeptic. I default to the skeptical view on outstanding claims that lack evidence.

All you are doing is dancing around the request for evidence. Your entire argument is fallacious and lacking. YOU made the claim that all this evidence exists, so YOU have to produce the evidence, not me. Stop deflecting and actually hold up your part of the argument.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: WarminIndy

You're comparing teething to getting part of your penis cut off? Teething has a good end result, it allows you to chew food, circumcision has no good end result that justifies it happening.

With all of the debate about it being necessary or not, did you know this?

Circumcised Men Less Likely To Get HIV

Research in Africa found that heterosexual circumcised men are 38-66% less likely to contract HIV than uncircumcised men.
It is thought that the foreskin contains special cells that attract the cells of the HIV virus. This means that uncircumcised men who have vaginal sex with an HIV positive woman are more likely to develop the infection.
However, it is still unclear whether circumcision has the same protective effect for homosexual men who have unprotected anal sex.
Circumcision is thought to reduce the risk of a man getting syphilis and chancroid because:
the foreskin may provide a warm, moist environment that allows the syphilis and chancroid bacteria to grow and multiply
the foreskin often sustains tiny cuts (micro-abrasions) during sexual intercourse, which allow the bacteria to pass into the bloodstream
It is estimated that uncircumcised men are:
twice as likely to get syphilis
10 times as likely to get chancroid
However, circumcision is nowhere near as effective as condoms in preventing STIs. If used correctly, condoms are 98% effective in preventing STIs

Now that is not a pseudo-science website, but you are free to disregard their science if you wish. Circumcision seems to prevent sexually transmitted diseases, whodathunk it. But now we have condoms.

There definitely is a war on Jesus Christ(even though I don't really believe in religion). Just watch Sara Silvermans head spin, like in the Exorcist, when she goes on a tirade against Christ. She is a daughter of Satan. There's a lot of Christ-haters in Hollyweird.

Oh, and circumcision is a barbaric, perverted practice. I don't believe the BS about people who weren't circumcised are more susceptible to disease. That's why you take a shower or wear condoms. No one in my entire family believe in circumcision. I enjoyed explaining it to doctors when they ask why not.