It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why would God want man's foreskin ?

page: 7
6
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 12:14 AM
link   
So, I just happened to read the title of the post, in the column off to the right. I have been laughing for over five minutes! Such a great question.

Why would God want a whole lot o' foreskin?

Awesome!




posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 12:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Mynaeris
 


Sausage casings. God loves em! They are good with Sauerkraut and onions I heard.

Its either a form sacrifice and has its roots in my favorite subject Paganism. Or is for hygiene.

Either that or he has a weird bratwurst recipe.

[edit on 29-1-2009 by LoneGunMan]



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 12:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by LoneGunMan

Sausage casings. God loves em! They are good with Sauerkraut and onions I heard.



Really, I thought he may have a penchant for bacon rings or something! A couple of minutes in the fryer to get em crackly, a dash of salt and bob's yer uncle! Probably go down well with some holy beer!

IRM



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 01:02 AM
link   
Just thought some of you might find this interesting...


www.nocirc.org...



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 02:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by LoneGunMan
Its either a form sacrifice and has its roots in my favorite subject Paganism. Or is for hygiene.




Yeah the problem with the whole hygiene argument irks me slightly. I mean all you have to do is wash behind the foreskin each day in the shower and you'll be perfectly fine. It won't smell or anything and it's not like it's hard to get guys to play with their penises in the shower


People who are circumcised suffer from some conditions more, like drying and cracking of the head of the penis. Not to mention the complications of the actual operation.

To the lady who mentioned having her future sons penis circumcised. Why would you want to reduce his sexual pleasure in future? Oh great it'll look a little longer but he'll have far less pleasure during sex. That's something to thank your mom for huh.

Not to mention that in studies the partners of circumcised males have commented on their partners having to thrust violently hard and making it uncomfortable for the woman. Due to the greatly reduced amount of nerve ending in the circumcised penis they have to thrust harder to feel anything.

Again i point out that female circumcision is banned in many countries and seen by the red cross as inhumane. So why do we let men be circumcised?

[edit on 29-1-2009 by ImaginaryReality1984]



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 02:30 AM
link   
I think it's a primitive and disgusting practice that only primitive and disgusting people practice.....that makes sense.


Why didn't God ask the Women to cut off one of their Tits as a covenant with him? They still have one other boob, yes?

Geez, twisted Humans and their weird customs....

Perhaps God makes 'Jerky' out of it........hehhehehe....


Yeah, nice thread....



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 02:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Unrealised
I think it's a primitive and disgusting practice that only primitive and disgusting people practice.....that makes sense.


Why didn't God ask the Women to cut off one of their Tits as a covenant with him? They still have one other boob, yes?

Geez, twisted Humans and their weird customs....

Perhaps God makes 'Jerky' out of it........hehhehehe....


Yeah, nice thread....


Actually, until it was recently outlawed, there have been female circumcisions (don't even ask me.. I didn't care to know how lol).

I opted to have my sons circumcized and I do not consider it disgusting at all. Neither do my sons.




[edit on 29-1-2009 by justamomma]



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 02:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by justamomma

Originally posted by Unrealised
I think it's a primitive and disgusting practice that only primitive and disgusting people practice.....that makes sense.


Why didn't God ask the Women to cut off one of their Tits as a covenant with him? They still have one other boob, yes?

Geez, twisted Humans and their weird customs....

Perhaps God makes 'Jerky' out of it........hehhehehe....


Yeah, nice thread....


Actually, until it was recently outlawed, there have been female circumcisions (don't even ask me.. I didn't care to know how lol).

I opted to have my sons circumcized and I do not consider it distgusting at all. Neither do my sons.


[edit on 29-1-2009 by justamomma]



Yes, but female circumcision isn't / wasn't done as a covenant with God. It was done by sick people, just like those who trim the little boys' tree.

How did it sound when they screamed their little heads off?

Your sons do not know what they're missing....or do they??


I know what they're missing.... a 4-skin.

My God let me keep all of my faculties intact.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 02:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by justamomma

I opted to have my sons circumcized and I do not consider it disgusting at all. Neither do my sons.




Your sons have never experienced otherwise so they are none the wiser as to how much they're missing during sex. They are also open to higher rates of problems with cracking, splitting and problematic drying of the penis.

I dunno i just think it's wrong that we allow parents to chop off part of their childrens anatomy when the child has no say. The foreskin is a functional part of the human body, it's not useless, it evolved for a purpose.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 02:42 AM
link   
The loss of the foreskin is a sign of giving up the desires of the flesh to serve God. In the New Testament, it is symbolized by baptism. Baptism has replaced circumcision.

The enzymes in saliva prevent bleeding. That procedure is not in the Bible.

The eighth day after birth is the optimum time for circumcision because that is the highest point in your entire life when bleeding is minimized.

STDs are promoted by foreskins covering the flesh and trapping the diseases.

If you don't circumcise, the flesh can grow to the penis in some cases, requiring surgical separation around the age of four.

[edit on 29-1-2009 by Jim Scott]

[edit on 29-1-2009 by Jim Scott]



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 02:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jim Scott

STDs are promoted by foreskins covering the flesh and trapping the diseases.



That claim was made by a few doctors and hasn't been backed up. One of the major arguments was that langerhans cells in the foreskin were vulnerable to HIV infection. New studies have shown that langerhans cells actually produce chemicals which fight the HIV virus.

The idea that the virus gets trapped under the foreskin and increases infection has been greatly battered. Yeast infections are however more easily transferred with an uncircumcised penis. However this can be countered with basic hygiene (washing under the foreskin) and condom use. In the end you should wear a condom anyway.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 02:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by justamomma

Originally posted by Unrealised
I think it's a primitive and disgusting practice that only primitive and disgusting people practice.....that makes sense.


Why didn't God ask the Women to cut off one of their Tits as a covenant with him? They still have one other boob, yes?

Geez, twisted Humans and their weird customs....

Perhaps God makes 'Jerky' out of it........hehhehehe....


Yeah, nice thread....


Actually, until it was recently outlawed, there have been female circumcisions (don't even ask me.. I didn't care to know how lol).

I opted to have my sons circumcized and I do not consider it disgusting at all. Neither do my sons.




[edit on 29-1-2009 by justamomma]


I believe the act of female circumcision was implemented to take away the pleasurable side of sex for woman as in the process you remove the womans clitoris...no pleasure, less chance of infidelity. This was a mans reasoning...making woman less of a partner, reducing her to a procreation device...

Now as far as having less sensation...I was circumcised at birth. Not having available information as to sex before circumcision, I have to say that as a healthy 31 year old male...I believe the level of sensation is more than adequate to say that I don't believe that much could have been lost.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 02:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984

Originally posted by justamomma

I opted to have my sons circumcized and I do not consider it disgusting at all. Neither do my sons.




Your sons have never experienced otherwise so they are none the wiser as to how much they're missing during sex. They are also open to higher rates of problems with cracking, splitting and problematic drying of the penis.

I dunno i just think it's wrong that we allow parents to chop off part of their childrens anatomy when the child has no say. The foreskin is a functional part of the human body, it's not useless, it evolved for a purpose.


You are entitled to your general opinion as long as you realize that it is just that.. a general opinion. I had my reasons for doing it and since they are my sons, it was my call. If I continued to allow for the chopping of more and more ever so often, then I could understand someone coming in and saying stop.. but I do not.

The reasons that it is done may not be fully understood by you, but I feel 100% guilt free in my decision and you are right... they are none the wiser and actually, I have heard men say they are grateful for it... have never heard a complaint from a male in whom the practice has been carried out on.

*side note* it is more err.. well, appealing than not having it done.. lmfao


[edit on 29-1-2009 by justamomma]



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 03:03 AM
link   
According to Frazer in "The Golden Bough", circumcision began as a fertility rite, and that makes a lot of sense. The bible story goes that God's side of the bargain was to make Abraham's descendents "a mighty nation". The claim that it ever had hygienic benefits is bogus because lots of desert tribes didn't circumcise and they thrived. But once it got started it gained a life of its own, with a new disease it's supposed to be good for every 20 years or so. HIV/AIDS is just the latest in a long list that includes TB, epilepsy and hernia. And of course no man wants to admit that his penis is anything less than perfect, so the tradition continues.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 03:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Unrealised
 



Hmmmm.. how do you know the difference then? You have not experienced both ways. Trust me.. a man who has been circumcized has not lost their ability to feel pleasure.


so.. your arguement is null and void since you can not actually compare the difference.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 03:07 AM
link   
reply to post by justamomma
 


Should it be a parents choice though to chop off a part of their childs anatomy? I'm not so sure about that, especially as the female version is considered such a horrific act by the red cross. It's the same principle.

As for it being more appealing, well a child won't be aware of this until they're much older, there is such a large amount of people concerned about this that you can find equipment for restoring the foreskin online. It's a simple technique as skin that is constantly stretched will grow and so the foreskin can be restored. It won't be like it used to be though and will have fewer nerve endings.

If men are concerned about their size then they're idiots anyway, sorry, i think it's a horrible thing and am glad i am intact. What is interesting is that the women i've spoken to from the USA more often than not prefer the circumcised version. Here in the UK it's the other way around, or in actuality here in the UK it seems most women don't care lol.

I dunno, it's a strange cultural thing. I don't mind people having their own culture, but i don't think it's right to be chopping parts off of a child unless there is a medical need.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 03:10 AM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 


If you are asking me.. it was a choice both me and THEIR FATHER made. He was very much for it... so, him being a male.. yes, I feel 100% at peace with it (being our decision, that is). I seriously doubt they will be complaining about it. Seems to me the only ones complaining about it are those who HAVEN'T had it done.




[edit on 29-1-2009 by justamomma]



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 03:12 AM
link   
And in fact.. just to add, since I am converting to Judaism and have full confidence that my sons will decide to do so when they are old enough to decide, makes it a little easier on them, no? lol



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 03:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by justamomma
And in fact.. just to add, since I am converting to Judaism and have full confidence that my sons will decide to do so when they are old enough to decide, makes it a little easier on them, no? lol




Real Jews are born Jews.....

Don't pretend, God may want to Circumcise you too!



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 03:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by justamomma
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 


If you are asking me.. it was a choice both me and THEIR FATHER made. He was very much for it... so, him being a male.. yes, I feel 100% at peace with it (being our decision, that is). I seriously doubt they will be complaining about it. Seems to me the only ones complaining about it are those who HAVEN'T had it done.




Actually there is a large movement of men getting their foreskin restored as i said above. Also maybe you should consider why the ones who haven't had it done are so vocal, we get the full sensation during sex afterall


Again i ask why a parent has a right to chop off a functional part of their child's body. You're not cutting the tag off some clothing.

[edit on 29-1-2009 by ImaginaryReality1984]



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join