Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"Well, a medical study from Belgium suggests that there is a small "but significant" difference in reported sexual pleasure, favoring men with intact foreskin. Additionally, the study reports that circumcised men report more incidents of "pain and numbness" during arousal due to the presence of scar tissue."
At one time, the 'Christian God' instructed his faithful followers to slaughter without mercy, those who would blaspheme his name, even women, children, entire towns of people if just one blasphemer is found among them.
While it was the 'Old testament'...its still the same God.
Yes indeed. The Old testament is a bloody collection of works. You said some key words though. "At one time." As in millennia ago. It's not like the fall of Jericho happened yesterday. Or Herod's purge of male infants. ANCIENT history. We're talking about the here and now. That is where the thread topic is set. Nor are we talking about some ME septic tank 15000 miles away. We're talking the United States.
Are you seriously trying to defend the bassackwardness of Islam in the 21st century by bringing the Old Testament of the Bible into this? Wow. That is just plain old straight up insulting to folks intelligence. Speaking for myself I find it thus. And BTW, the Israelites were not Christians and the God in the Old Testament is the God of Abraham and Isaac. The God of Israel, Jehovah, Yaweh and Yeshua are other names in the same faith.
You are way out of your league trying to make an argument that justifies modern Islam by bringing up the Old Testament. Seriously? Christianity is a totally different thing from Judeaism. The Old Testament for Christians is a history and a reminder of what it was that Jesus Christ sacrificed for. I'm no Biblical scholar but I know way better than to fall for this "argument" you're attempting. Christianity has done something that Islam has not. Evolved. Islam has devolved. And brutal treatment of people in the name of Jesus ended in the 19th century. "Missionaries" in the Americas, North and South treated the indigenous people as less than human (the Spanish being worst this way than anyone else) and what they did was in total contradiction to everything that Jesus Christ believed and taught.
And none of that has any bearing on this discussion. None whatsoever. Trying to justify and excuse the conduct of Islamists and the cultural significance of FGM in the United States of right now, this very moment by pointing to the Old Testament and the Israelites. If you had at least gone forward in time a few thousand years to the 19th century but but butting Christianity in this context would have made a LITTLE more sense. But we're still talking well over a century ago. Have you actually even read the New Testament? At least the part where the story of Jesus' sacrifice is detailed?
Well Islam does not hold that Jesus was the Messiah.They believe that was Mohommed. Mohommed was the LAST prophet and the true Messiah of God (Allah). And through his the Koran was revealed to the faithful and in the Koran is detailed these barbarous practices such as FGM, which is just a small part of the penance women must bear. And these pains are going on here in the modern US and you point to the Old Testament of the Bible as an argument saying these Islamic atrocities in the here and now are OK because "the Christian God' commanded the Israelites to "kill all who blasphemed His name? Sheesh I've seen some way off target leftist ramblings ut this is a really good one.
But then again History of any kind is not a leftist strong suit. I've no doubt made some mistakes in my references since I am working from memory here but considering what I'm rebutting here I don't feel so bad as to that...
Yes indeed. The Old testament is a bloody collection of works. You said some key words though. "At one time." As in millennia ago. It's not like the fall of Jericho happened yesterday. Or Herod's purge of male infants. ANCIENT history. We're talking about the here and now. That is where the thread topic is set. Nor are we talking about some ME septic tank 15000 miles away. We're talking the United States.
Are you seriously trying to defend the bassackwardness of Islam in the 21st century by bringing the Old Testament of the Bible into this? Wow. That is just plain old straight up insulting to folks intelligence. Speaking for myself I find it thus. And BTW, the Israelites were not Christians and the God in the Old Testament is the God of Abraham and Isaac. The God of Israel, Jehovah, Yaweh and Yeshua are other names in the same faith.
You are way out of your league trying to make an argument that justifies modern Islam by bringing up the Old Testament. Seriously? Christianity is a totally different thing from Judeaism. The Old Testament for Christians is a history and a reminder of what it was that Jesus Christ sacrificed for. I'm no Biblical scholar but I know way better than to fall for this "argument" you're attempting. Christianity has done something that Islam has not. Evolved. Islam has devolved. And brutal treatment of people in the name of Jesus ended in the 19th century. "Missionaries" in the Americas, North and South treated the indigenous people as less than human (the Spanish being worst this way than anyone else) and what they did was in total contradiction to everything that Jesus Christ believed and taught.
And none of that has any bearing on this discussion. None whatsoever. Trying to justify and excuse the conduct of Islamists and the cultural significance of FGM in the United States of right now, this very moment by pointing to the Old Testament and the Israelites. If you had at least gone forward in time a few thousand years to the 19th century but but butting Christianity in this context would have made a LITTLE more sense. But we're still talking well over a century ago. Have you actually even read the New Testament? At least the part where the story of Jesus' sacrifice is detailed?
Well Islam does not hold that Jesus was the Messiah.They believe that was Mohommed. Mohommed was the LAST prophet and the true Messiah of God (Allah). And through his the Koran was revealed to the faithful and in the Koran is detailed these barbarous practices such as FGM, which is just a small part of the penance women must bear. And these pains are going on here in the modern US and you point to the Old Testament of the Bible as an argument saying these Islamic atrocities in the here and now are OK because "the Christian God' commanded the Israelites to "kill all who blasphemed His name? Sheesh I've seen some way off target leftist ramblings ut this is a really good one.
But then again History of any kind is not a leftist strong suit. I've no doubt made some mistakes in my references since I am working from memory here but considering what I'm rebutting here I don't feel so bad as to that...
The Ryan Commission published its 2,600-page report in 2009. Despite government inspections and supervision, Catholic clergy had, across decades, violently tormented thousands of children. The report found that children held in orphanages and reformatory schools were treated no better than slaves—in some cases, sex slaves. Rape and molestation of boys were “endemic.” Other reports were issued about other institutions, including parish churches and schools, and homes for unwed mothers—the notorious “Magdalene Laundries,” where girls and women were condemned to lives of coercive servitude. The ignominy of these institutions was laid out in plays and documentary films, and in Philomena, the movie starring Judi Dench, which was based on a true story. The homes-for-women scandal climaxed in 2017, when a government report revealed that from 1925 to 1961, at the Bon Secours Mother and Baby Home, in Tuam, County Galway, babies who died—nearly 800 of them—were routinely disposed of in mass graves or sewage pits. Not only priests had behaved despicably. So had nuns.
They just take their daughters back to Middle east where they can get it done. Extreme medical procedures is not limited to the middle east. Up until the 1984 in Ireland Catholic hospitals performed symphysiotomy instead of a C-Section for woman who had difficult births. The reason was once a woman has a C-section doctors recommend only having no more then 3 children using a C-section the church wanted woman to have many more then 3. A symphysiotomy is where doctor cuts joint that holds the pelvis together at the bottom allowing it to widen larger. Many have life long of pain and other damage to the area after that.
C) I know what this procedure is. It is widely practiced in mostly Muslim countries in northern and Eastern Africa. However, the practice has no mandate in Islamic law and is a cultural/traditional practice rather than a religious one. There is ample evidence that the practice pre-dates Islam. I do not approve of it at all. The goal is to remove sexual pleasure from women, cementing their status as inferior and subject to men. Women should be just as free to enjoy sex as men.
You must be an Islamaphobe? Female circumcision has been part of the Muslim culture for centuries. Why is it male circumcision, i.e. male genital mutation, the most common surgery performed in the U.S. still being embraced? Why is it never discussed? 80,000 nerve endings cut.
You must be an Islamaphobe? Female circumcision has been part of the Muslim culture for centuries. Why is it male circumcision, i.e. male genital mutation, the most common surgery performed in the U.S. still being embraced? Why is it never discussed? 80,000 nerve endings cut.
It is not "mutilation." It is an accepted and legitimate medical procedure.
What about about a transsexual? Changing from a man into a woman. We all know what part(s) are removed. Is that "mutilation," too?
You must be an Islamaphobe? Female circumcision has been part of the Muslim culture for centuries. Why is it male circumcision, i.e. male genital mutation, the most common surgery performed in the U.S. still being embraced? Why is it never discussed? 80,000 nerve endings cut.
It's discussed all the time and the CDC and the WHO have valid medical rational for recommending it. Male circumcision is typically used as a smoke screen when Female Genital Mutilation comes up, by those against male circumcision, and people that support FGM
"CDC proposes stronger endorsement of male circumcision"
"Health providers should advise adolescents and adult men and the parents of male infants and boys that circumcision substantially reduces the risk of contracting several sexually transmitted infections, such as HIV, herpes, and human papillomavirus, say new recommendations proposed by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on 2 December"
I know what FGM is. I’m not implying it’s an exact equivalent. I bring the issue of circumcision up because we are one of the few countries that routinely practices it, with out any religious reasons for doing so. An uncircumcised penis is more sensitive than a circumcised one, so therefore could be considered a form of male genital mutilation.
If male circumcision was considered "male genital mutilation" the WHP, the CDC, the APP, and every other health care organization in the world would refer to it as such. They Don't
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
