God Made You Wrong

I’ve been involved in some discussion about circumcision and recently read a review of a TV show on “Praying the Gay Away.” Discussion on either of these topics can get pretty heated but there’s kind of a theme to it all. In either case there’s this strange kind of admission by theists that god made a mistake when he made you. That is, you either have more penis than he wanted you to have or you’re attracted to people to whom he’d rather you not be attracted. Doesn’t anybody find this odd?

In the Old Testament god laid out his provision for slicing up infants’ penises for some reason even though god supposedly creates each male in the womb and adds the foreskin to the little guy. If god finds the foreskin to be such a problematic piece of anatomy why didn’t he just omit it in the design? What’s with the genital mutilation? And why has our society come to accept that it’s anything other than an archaic, barbaric, religious practice and made up lame excuses as to the usefulness of circumcision in hygiene, AIDS prevention, and fertility? How come none of these people making these excuses would advocate elective cosmetic surgery of any other type on infants? That’s what circumcision is, after all.

The struggles of a homosexual in resolving his/her identity with his/her religion seem to be illustrative of the most painful mental torture one could undergo. You realize that your attraction to the same sex is not a conscious decision so you must have been made that way but you realize that your god hates it when you entertain your natural desires. In order not to displease your god you must deny your nature – which, presumably, he instilled in you when you were created. Yet there are religious homosexuals out there struggling on a daily basis to suppress their true selves in favor of pleasing an intolerant deity. Why??

When you say that god needs you to remove your foreskin or that he’s not OK with you being attracted to the same sex, you’re admitting that god makes mistakes! Not just one or two mistakes, but millions and billions of them! Is your god perfect or not? Is your god loving or not? Seems to me the best way to resolve this conflict is to admit that it’s your own personal bias causing these dilemmas and that your god is imaginary. Get on that, m’kay? Thanks.

Actually, consider this: instead of your god having made you wrong…maybe you made your god wrong.

Check this out:

115 Comments

  1. Your first premise that Christians think God created people wrong is what YOU think, not what Christianity teaches.

    Second, you are trying to redefine the meaning of the Bible with your dissertation on mutilated penises.

    What you are doing is creating your own opposing argument, assigning it the Christians and then arguing against your own argument.

    And then proclaiming Christians wrong.

    People like me find that kind of intellectual dishonestly unacceptable.  I am a real Christian. 

    Try arguing against me.

  2. @LoBornlytesThoughtPalace – I never said that it’s a Christian doctrine that god created you wrong. I’m saying that Christian views indicate in a very strange way that god either makes mistakes when creating people or changed his mind as to their design after the fact. I’m not creating a straw man, it’s Christians who proclaim that their awesome god created every one of us.

    It’s great that you’re a real Christian (like I don’t know any of those). So tell me, did god know each and every one of us before he formed us in the womb and numbered the hairs on our heads?

  3. @yarnspnr – Hey, why did you edit your comment? It was pricelessly good as it was!  You had very eloquently pointed out the obvious hypocrisy of Curtis – insulting a woman he’s never met, using some rather strong curse words.

  4. @In_Reason_I_Trust – I didn’t.  For some reason I lost the first one when I posted the second.  Chuck’s god was watching over himl.  πŸ™‚  For those inquiring minds who want to know, this is what the guts of my first post to Lobornchuck said:

    “Hi Chuck.  Nice to see you spewing your own personal hate and showing off your low IQ again.  Christians everywhere must feel warm and fuzzy to hear one of their own call an innocent youg girl you’ve never met and don’t even know a “fat bitch.”  I mean you being a guy and all, Chuck.  I’ll bet your fellow Christians are just delighted to have you on their side.”

    Or something like that.

  5. @LoBornlytesThoughtPalace – OK, thanks for the answer. So in your opinion, god knows literally everything about you and how you operate because he made you just the way you are. That being said, answer the next question: does god create all males with foreskin?

  6. @CoderHead – I have no idea about foreskins.  I thought your next question was going to concern suffering and injustice. 

    That is more interesting than whether or not God created every man with foreskin.

    Also, my apologies for my tirade against Hector.  He needs a good beating every 10 minutes or so.

  7. @LoBornlytesThoughtPalace – My blog post has nothing to do with suffering and injustice. It has to do with god creating things a certain way and then requiring that they be altered. Why do you have no idea about foreskins? You do know what a foreskin is, right? If so, are you aware that all male babies are born with foreskins on their penis?

  8. @CoderHead – Your quote means that God was intensely concerned about how depraved man had become.

    This gets back to you assigning your own meaning to the Bible, which already has its own meaning.

    Just using reason alone, we know that if God is perfect, he cannot err.  And since the Bible is the mind of God in written form it would be a contradiction for God to show himself erring in the Bible.

    From your standpoint as an atheist who knows nothing of God, you are not in a position to judge that which you know nothing about.

    Consequently, any discussions you undertake about God, must be taken from the theist viewpoint.

  9. @LoBornlytesThoughtPalace – Removing the foreskin as a sign of obedience for god’s approval denotes god’s displeasure with the natural male penis. If that weren’t the case, then the sign could have been not cutting your hair (as a Nazirite) or not clipping the edges of your beard. Neither of those options involve removing a part of the body that was designed by god and would be an outward sign of obedience. In commanding these types of signs, god would acknowledge that he designed the human body right the first time and that it need not be altered in order for him to approve.

    He doesn’t do this. He commands that a piece of the sex organ containing a large bundle of fine-touch nerves be removed. Why do you suppose that is?

  10. @LoBornlytesThoughtPalace – I find it laughable that you presume to tell me what I do and don’t know. I may be an atheist now but it wasn’t always so. Making assumptions like that only paints you in a judgmental and condescending light. Think about that, OK?

  11. @CoderHead – Please don’t laugh. I’m only applying reason.

    If you really knew God you wouldn’t be an atheist.

    And based on your questions, and the way you assign your own definitions to things that are already defined it is quite clear what you know and don’t know.

    The fact that you find the need to apply your own definitions to things means that you haven’t taken the time to learn the true meaning of things.

    That means, in this case, that you know absolutely nothing of the Bible or God.  I’m not trying to be mean.  It’s just that’s the way it is.

    I find that to be an atheist you have to give up the ability to reason, also since the existence of God can be determined easily by simply thinking about it.

    So if you laugh, the joke is on you.

  12. @CoderHead – Removing the foreskin as a sign of obedience for god’s approval denotes god’s displeasure with the natural male penis.

    NO IT DOESN’T!

    That is simply what YOU say.  You don’t get to say what God thinks.  Only God gets to say what he thinks.

  13. @LoBornlytesThoughtPalace – Oh, you convinced me with the ALL CAPS. Actually, since Christians constantly get to tell me what god thinks (and they’ve all got their own version) I should be allowed in on the fun. Otherwise, I’ll just feel like I’m missing out and I might cry…just a little. The funny thing is that since you personally take the Bible as a written form of god’s own thoughts it’s apparent you haven’t done any research at all into the history of the Bible.

    Regardless, is god or is god not telling humans that they must remove a natural body part that he designed in order to fulfill a covenant and have his approval? Answer that.

  14. @CoderHead – Did you delete Curtis’ comments where he replied to me? If not you, then it was him that deleted them.

    If he deleted them, it’s quite revealing. LOL! What a pathetic little shit he is. The mere fact that he consumes oxygen makes me sad. What a waste of air, space, and resources.

  15. @LoBornlytesThoughtPalace – The existence of Allah, Krishna, Visnu, and Xenu can easily be determined by thinking about it. What’s your point? If you think my being an atheist now means I didn’t do any research and attempt to have a relationship with your god then you’re woefully mistaken. I’m an atheist specifically because I thought about god.

    And if you condemn someone for assigning their own meaning to things in the Bible then you’re showing ignorance. Nobody – not even the most earnest, pious believer – can read the Bible without injecting their own interpretation and assigning their own meaning. Without someone to interpret it, the Bible is nothing more than scrap paper.

  16. @CoderHead – The existence of Allah, Krishna, Visnu, and Xenu can easily be determined by thinking about it.

    That is not true.  

    We know of Allah because Mohammed said so.  The Indian gods have similar man made names.

    God is the first cause of all things. The first cause is simply known as “first cause” because we are thinking our way to the origin of the creation which is the Creator.

    Giving God a name is a matter of faith.  Understanding that he exists is a matter of reason.

  17. @LoBornlytesThoughtPalace – We only know of the Biblical god because the Bible says so. Jehovah is a man-made name. How are your arguments any different than the arguments given by all of the world’s religions?

    If you want to argue for a “first cause,” which is a nebulous constructor, then that’s fine but don’t use the Bible to do it. A “first cause” has none of the properties attributed to the Biblical god; it just causes the universe to be here. So what are you actually arguing for/against? You don’t make any sense.

  18. @CoderHead – Nobody – not even the most earnest, pious believer – can read the Bible without injecting their own interpretation and assigning their own meaning.

    That is error right there. The Bible can mean only one thing since it is God’s revelation about himself to man.

    From the Bible and from history we know that Jesus established the Church.  He gave his teaching authority (the power to interpret) to the Church.

    Further, we got the Bible from the Church.

    It was commission by Pope Damasus I around 382AD.  The Church carefully selected the books of the Bible from all the material that was in circulation at the time. 

    And Saint Jerome translated all that material into Latin.

    Since we got the Bible from the Church, only the Church has the authority to say, or interpret what the Bible means.

    If everyone were capable of interpreting the Bible than there would be 7,000,000,000 versions of what the Bible means.

    We understand from reason that if the Bible is the mind of God in written form it can only mean ONE things.

    And that ONE thing is what God wants it to mean, not what you or I want it to mean.

  19. @CoderHead – I’m simply using the caps for emphasis.

    Anyone who believes that they can offer their own interpretation of the Bible is in error as I have just shown in the above comments.

    Protestants and atheists have the same thought process and commit the same errors in reasoning.

    I’ve offered very little dogma in this discussion.  Everyone of my conclusions was based on facts, history and reasoning.

    If a religion is not reasonable it isn’t worth believing in.  That’s why I was only a Protestant for 6 weeks.

  20. @CoderHead – God revealed himself and his name to the Jews.  There were thousands of witnesses.

    And what was witnessed was written down in books that eventually became the Bible and through tradition, which are teachings that get passed down from one generation to the next.

    All other religions were founded by some wacko who required that everyone take his word for it.

    Jesus did miracles that were witnessed by thousands.  Hundreds of thousands of Jews saw God work miracles during the time of Moses.

  21. @LoBornlytesThoughtPalace – Which church has the authority to interpret its true meaning? The Catholic Church? The Presbyterians? The Pentecostals? The Mormons? The Methodists? The Unitarians? The Westboro Baptists? Who? Why can’t you understand that every denomination, every sect of Bible-believing Christian has their own interpretation which they consider to be the one true meaning of god’s word? Do you not get that? What makes your interpretation correct?

    @LoBornlytesThoughtPalace – What’s the difference between your thousands of witnesses and the thousands of witnesses (and millions of adherents) to other gods? Your god isn’t the only one with books. Your god isn’t the only one with miracles. In fact, your god isn’t even original. It draws from several other pagan gods that predate the Bible.

    So are you Catholic then?

  22. i would have said the best way to resolve this would be to admit that people are being ridiculous, and that if some people are born homosexual or any other type of sexual then it’s okay. if god is perfect and he is indeed creating people the way they are supposed to be without ANY mistakes, then everyone is how they are supposed to be.

    it’s interesting that you point out that christians say being anything but heterosexual is wrong and “unnatural” yet preach god makes no mistakes… i’d never thought of that. one more reason to add the list of why i despise essentially every form of organized religion.

  23. Sorry, didn’t read through all the comments. I have no intention to. 

    Circumcision, medically speaking, is far more hygienic than leaving the foreskin on. People who suggest otherwise have an agenda & have only googled the first 2 pages on the matter. They’re willfully ignorant to what the majority of physicians KNOW.

    As far as God making homosexuals wrong, the problem is always one of personal sin. I was born with a tendency to love MYself and so were you. Labeling any kind of sin as “God’s fault” (such as heterosexual mental adultery) is a cop out. 

    If you want to know the origin of your own particular and or favorite sin, look in the mirror. Don’t blame a God you claim to not believe in.
      

  24.  In commanding these types of signs, god would acknowledge that he designed the human body right the first time and that it need not be altered in order for him to approve.
    If the bible’s true, then this is just speculation. It could also be that before Adam sinned, he didn’t have foreskin, and that is one of the repercussions of sin, and that God would then use that as a symbolism for the hardness of our hearts, which needs to be removed.

  25. @CoderHead – The Catholic Church since it was founded by Jesus Christ.  The Catholic Church was 1500 years old by the time Martin Luther went bananas and cooked up his heresy.

    All Protestant denominations were founded by men.  The Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches were founded by Christ.

  26. @CoderHead – The first cause in not nebulous. The first cause is exact.  

    Just because you may have trouble with your capacity to reason and focus your mind on a problem doesn’t mean the concept you cannot grasp is nebulous.

    When I was in college studying physics and calculus I would have been laughed out of the classroom for whining that the concepts were too nebulous so therefore they don’t exist.

    I had to sit down and focus my mind and think until I understood the matter at hand.

  27. @Rose_Hikari – 

    it’s interesting that you point out that christians say being anything but heterosexual is wrong and “unnatural” yet preach god makes no mistakes.

    But that is untrue. That is NOT what Christians say.

    So you are hating Christianity for no good reason.

    Why do you believe something just because somebody says it? 

    If you took time to study Christianity, you would understand that God didn’t teach “anything but heterosexuality is wrong and “unnatural” yet preached he makes no mistakes.”

    That’s a bit incoherent.

  28. @LoBornlytesThoughtPalace – To be honest, I really don’t feel like arguing with u. Xanga is a place to express and exchange thoughts. Not to discredit anyone with their own beliefs. You and I have two very differentthoughts an mindsets. You have your opinion, which I will respect, and u have yours. There is nothing more to it. And me even trying or attempting to put up a feasable argument with you would be of no use since it is quite obvious u will attempt to discredit me with your beliefs. So to make it plain and simple, I’d rather not fight a fight where in the end we would just simply agree to disagree with each other.

    Btw. It is called a facepalm. The action in which one puts his own palm on his own face out of disbelief, embarrassment, or fatigue due to something repetitious. And my reason for facepalming is bc this would not be tue first time I have seen u on xanga instigating cyber fights over beliefs. Which furthermore usually leads to xanga drama; which I’m tired of seeing.

    I sincerely do hope you understand where my viewpoint and actions are coming from.

  29. @LoBornlytesThoughtPalace – Vishnu is the one true god.

    It seems that your mental capacity fails to grasp the obvious evidence.

    Just because you may have trouble with your
    capacity to reason and focus your mind on a problem doesn’t mean the
    concept you cannot grasp is nebulous.

    If you had even a whiff of rationality, you’d see that I’m right. The fact that you don’t see it is merely a reflection of your lack of intellectual capacity.

  30. @verified_but_still_denied –To be honest, I really don’t feel like arguing with u. Xanga is a place to express and exchange thoughts. Not to discredit anyone with their own beliefs.

    But you palm faced me for the express purpose of discrediting me and insulting me.

    Words mean things.

    You can’t discredit someone and then come back and say you value a “place to express and exchange thoughts.”

    As with any elitist, the only thoughts you wish to exchange are your own and others like your own.

    That isn’t an exchange and it’s not honest.  It’s a narcissistic echo.

  31. @bakersdozen2 – The AMA specifically states that it cannot recommend circumcision because the risks and benefits are unproven and it’s an elective procedure. You can talk about hygiene all you want but it doesn’t make it so. In third-world countries where general hygiene is an issue, an uncircumcised penis would be a hygiene issue. There’s no excuse for industrialized countries to slice up infants’ genitals.

    I don’t blame a god for anything unless I’m bringing the argument to the level of a theist. I cannot argue a theist’s god unless I presume – for the sake of the argument – the god exists. I’m not worried about sin because I obviously don’t have reason to believe a god will be judging me for anything I do. I’ll take my judgment from my peers, if you don’t mind.

  32. @musterion99 – If god is using the foreskin as an example of the hardness of our hearts then does that mean women never sin and are all theists? Women don’t have foreskin and aren’t required to provide god with a sign of obedience to the covenant, so are they all perfect or are they all going to Hell? Your reasoning makes no sense.

    Would you still feel it’s apt symbolism if god had chosen a finger instead of foreskin? Fingers are bony and hard and could easily symbolize the hardness of our hearts. What if he wanted every human – male and female – to chop off their pinky at the second knuckle, would that be OK? Why continue to make excuses for barbaric practices?

  33. @LoBornlytesThoughtPalace – The Jews deny that Jesus was god in the flesh and don’t purport to have seen god face-to-face. Maybe you can clarify how the Jews are considered witnesses for the veracity of the Catholic Church, because I’d actually be interested to hear that.

    You misunderstood what I was saying. If you’re only arguing a first cause, then it’s an ill-defined entity that doesn’t resemble the Biblical god. You keep talking about knowing that god exists because we can think about him (or something equally incoherent) but continue to fail at explaining why all of the other things we can think of aren’t just as valid – like the other 2,500 gods we’ve imagined up.

  34. @CoderHead – 

     If god is using the foreskin as an example of the hardness of our hearts then does that mean women never sin and are all theists? Women don’t have foreskin and aren’t required to provide god with a sign of obedience to the covenant, so are they all perfect or are they all going to Hell? Your reasoning makes no sense.

    lol – I just love when atheists are so narrow minded when it comes to the bible. It makes no sense because you limit your thinking. It would be that way because God placed men as the authoritive figure and chose to use them as the example. There’s other consequences women have to pay for sin, namely the pain of child birth. Another possibility is that Adam was born with a foreskin but God still decided to use that symbolism.

    Would you still feel it’s apt symbolism if god had chosen a finger instead of foreskin?

    Yes, but it’s a moot question because God didn’t choose that.


    Why continue to make excuses for barbaric practices?

    It’s not an excuse just because you say so. When did you become the arbiter of truth?

  35. @CoderHead – The AMA is nothing more than a doctors union. They may be effective in negotiating medicaid and medicare reimbursements from the Federal Gov’t but they aren’t going to tell physicians how to practice medicine. Like all unions, they are a useful political tool for those they represent. 

    It’s quite clear from studies that male circumcision (especially when applied early in life)has health benefits. However, it’s not a magical cure all meant to protect those who engage in a wildly promiscuous life style. At any rate, the majority of studies clearly show It reduces the risk of disease. The most recent one 2011 claiming a 60% reduction in HIV infection.

    http://www.fhi.org/en/RH/Pubs/Network/v20_4/NWvol20-4malecurcumsion.htm 

    “I cannot argue a theist’s god unless I presume – for the sake of the argument – the god exists.”

    Reasonable theists wouldn’t argue your freedom to choose to sin, just the wisdom of it. 

    Clearly, God “allows” people to choose to sin, or not. Your argument that God is at fault for our behavior is ineffective & nonsensical whether you’re an Atheist (because god doesn’t exist in your mind) or a Theist (because we believe in human depravity).

    Other than that, I’m not really sure who your argument would effectively appeal to. It would seem to me that Atheists would not be concerned with sin and Theists wouldn’t agree to blame God for exercising our freedom to sin.  

    “I’ll take my judgment from my peers, if you don’t mind.”


    I assume you mean your Atheist peers. The Theists see you no differently than they see themselves. As a sinner in need of grace. 

  36. @CoderHead – Christianity has Judaism at it’s base. And yes, the Jews did see God.  Read the Bible.

    Since Jesus was Jew and God in the flesh then yes, the Jews saw God in the flesh regardless of their denials.

    The people who believed their eyes went on to become Christians.  Romans, Greeks and others also saw God in the flesh and went on to become Christians.

  37. @CoderHead – As my comments indicate I am arguing multiple things, not only one thing.

    That God is first cause is a matter of reason.

    Before we can move on to know God as person we must first accept the fact the he exists. How will the Bible benefit you if you don’t first believe that God exists?

    Regarding multiple Gods.  It is not reasonable to imagine multiple first causes.  Words means things.

    First means first.  There is only one first, by definition of first.  A tie only happens in liberal fantasy.

    Also, since God is infinite and all powerful, there can only be one God, by definition. Multiple infinites is an absurdity since that notion violates the definition of infinite.

  38. @musterion99 – Yes, I’m narrow-minded. You’re mixing your metaphors and when I say it makes no sense I’m the one being irrational. Here’s the problem:

    You are doing nothing more than speculating about Adam and Eve, signified by your liberal use of the terms, “I suppose” and, “It’s possible.” It doesn’t matter whether or not Adam was created with foreskin, because I’m talking about those people who are subject to the covenant with god requiring the removal of flesh. Those people are men. They were all born (or formed by god in the womb) with foreskin. Women are not subject to this covenant, so are they all going to Hell?

    When you talk about “other consequences” for women, you’re talking about the curse laid on women in the Garden of Eden. That has nothing to do with this covenant and at the same time this curse was doled out the man received a curse as the consequence of his sin as well. Again, you’re just making things up as excuses for this practice. So are women all going to Hell?

    I never said I was the arbiter of truth, but you’re not making a reasonable argument – even if the basis of the argument is the Bible. You’re just throwing out wild speculation. And I love how you can completely brush aside my alternate point as moot because that’s not the way it is. Why does slicing off a piece of your penis make any more sense than cutting off one of ten fingers? They’re both equally grotesque!

  39. @bakersdozen2 – Your study shows that in third-world countries or regions like sub-Saharan Africa, the risk of HIV infection is lowered in sexually active men of reproductive age. How in the world does that correlate to the point at hand? God proposes slicing up infants’ penises before they’re of reproductive age and before they even have a say in the matter! If he were worried about HIV infection (which he obviously wasn’t at the time) then he could have commanded it as an informed decision on the part of a reproductively mature male – and for the record I’m not against an adult male going to the doctor and requesting to be circumcised, for whatever reason. Even if your study has any credence (and it only has credence in the context of irresponsible sexual practices in undeveloped areas), it doesn’t explain the need for members of industrialized countries to mutilate infants.

    Your tangent on personal sin and whether or not I believe in it is irrelevant to this discussion. I’m talking about god creating you in a very specific, purposeful way and then demanding that you change the way you were born in order to please him. Address that instead of side-tracking the discussion, please.

    And when I say I’ll take my judgment from my peers I mean humans, atheist and theist alike. I have no reason to believe that some supernatural judge exists who cares what I did during my time on Earth, let alone how my penis looks.

  40. @LoBornlytesThoughtPalace – You’re straying from the topic again. This is not about whether Christianity is true, it’s about believing that a god made you a certain way and then commands that you change how he made you. I’ll address your points anyway because I’m bored.

    Yes, Christianity has its foundations in Judaism. However, when you try to use the Jews as witnesses to god in the flesh you fail because none of the Jews would actually bear witness that they saw god in the flesh – they didn’t (and still don’t) believe Jesus was the Messiah. Saying that you know what they saw regardless of their denials is akin to me telling you that you’re a witness to the fact that I’m the smartest man alive, regardless of how you may deny it. Would you testify to that? I didn’t think so.

    I was actually waiting for you to bring out this next argument. “How will the Bible benefit you if you don’t first believe god exists?” What an amazing observation! In order to believe in god, I must first believe in god. I hope that even you realize how logically circular and useless this statement is. It’s called a presupposition and anything that follows is bolstered by confirmation bias. You want something to be true and then you seek out anything and everything you can in order to make it seem as real as possible. So, yes, if I already presuppose that god exists (based on what, I don’t know) then I can pick up the Bible and really come to know him.

    However, if I presuppose that Allah exists and that Muhammad is his prophet then I can pick up the Koran and really come to know him, as many have. If I presuppose Hobbits then I can bolster that belief by reading the Lord of the Rings. Really, it works for anything and everything. You have yet to come up with a convincing argument.

  41. @CoderHead – Each of my comments is in response to one of yours. So you have only yourself to blame for the topic of discussion.

    Blaming me for your actions is unjust.  It’s like the fellow here, Verified_But_Still_Denied who became insulted because he insulted me and then deigned to allow me to continue expressing my opinion.

    I will address your comments, not because I am a bored, self righteous elitist, but because the topic is worthy.

    In order to believe in god, I must first believe in god

    I didn’t say that you did.

    I already explained how that stupendously ignorant statement is not true.  So after expressing your stupendous ignorance you then proceed to blame your stupendous ignorance on me by saying that your reasoning is circular!

    This is yet another example of you redefining an argument to be something stupid and then assigning it to your opponent.

    The existence of God is attainable through reason.  You don’t need the Bible to give you permission to use your brain.

    So after giving yourself permission to use your brain simply reason out the existence of God.

    Now after doing that, you still wish to go further and know God more fully you then proceed to source of his revelation about himself to man which is Judeo-Christianity.

    Then give yourself permission to use your brain and start studying Judeo-Christianity which includes studying the Bible.

  42. @CoderHead – That study is one of many. The most recent one cites 3rd world Africa simply because that’s where the HIV virus is most prevalent. There are other studies that covered 3rd world countries where circumcision was practiced early and proved to be beneficial. It is less beneficial for adult males. 

    The caveat given in almost every article is that it has been shown to be beneficial but there is an unwillingness to endorse it because of the demand for the procedure has led to unsanitary practices. In fact one study said that less than 10% are performed by physicians under sanitary conditions. In other words, WHO is concerned (and rightly so) that the known benefits are causing lay people to lop foreskin off indiscriminately. This is obviously not the result they’re looking for. 

    “I’m talking about god creating you in a very specific, purposeful way and then demanding that you change the way you were born in order to please him.”

    I know what you’re talking about. Your assumptions are flawed. Our sin is not God’s fault. God created you but he did not compel you to sin. you don’t believe in God ~ That’s fine. But you’re trying to force your false assumption on Christian ideology.

    Which I find all sorts of ironic. 

  43. @LoBornlytesThoughtPalace – haha i somehow knew i’d be getting a reply from you.

    i did not target christianity specifically in my comment. i dislike all organized religion, and i have nothing against christians/christianity. i don’t intend to devote time to studying religion that i dislike. my dislike is not baseless–i was brought up going to church and sunday school, so i’ve “been there, done that” so to speak. end of story.

    and i didn’t put words in god’s mouth. i said that i have witnessed *people* saying god makes no mistakes. i have no issue with god (if there is a god/gods), i just have issues with people (:

    but really, this comment doesn’t even matter. like verified_but_still_denied said, we have differing viewpoints and neither of us are going to change our minds!

  44. Didn’t bother reading the comments, so apologies if this point as already been made:

    The reason why the Old Testament speaks about circumcision is that it was a sign of the covenant between God and his people – the Jews – and a sign that He would always be with His people, no matter what.
    Then, in the New Testament Jesus Christ comes and is given up as the Perfect Sacrifice and creates a new, permanent covenant between God and ALL people this time. This replaces the covenants that God formed prior – including the need to circumcise all new born infants. It’s the same principle behind why Christians are not bound by the same laws and dietary requirements that the Jews of the Old Testament had to abide by.
    The current trend, particularly in America, to circumcise is more one of convenience, personal choice and a lack of understanding behind the religious reasons for it. Thus to argue that it is because God “made us wrong” is an uneducated, knee-jerk reaction that is about as useful as asking why God “lets” us sin, if it’s so abhorrent to Him.
    As for the homosexual issue, it’s a personal choice unaffected by anything or anyone else. That’s my opinion, bash me for it if you want to, but it’s the same principle behind accepting Jesus Christ as your Savior: it’s a choice that no-one or nothing can do for you.

  45. @bakersdozen2 – There’s no medical justification for circumcision. Like most contentious medical topics, there’s equal studies that “prove” either side of the “debate”.

    One argument is that the foreskin acts like a barrier, helping reduce the rate and amount of fluid transfer and retention and thus a lower rate of infection, while another argument suggests the foreskin acts like an incubator, encouraging fluid transfer and retention and thus a higher rate of infection. It just depends on who you ask and who commissioned the studies.
    As a Christian, there is no Biblical justification for circumcision in any way, shape or form and one who argues so has not read, understood or comprehended the Bible. Apologies in being blunt, but it makes my point effectively.

  46. @Rose_Hikari – But disliking an organized religion because you were taught to dislike it says nothing about the religion.  It says everything about the people who taught.

    Also, it’s no wonder that you don’t have an issue with God since you don’t believe in him.

    What you are demonstrating here is not reason but irrationality.

    Verified_But_Still_Denied is a narrow-minded ignoramus who may speak for you, but he doesn’t speak for me.  Discussions are one of the greatest ways of learning new ideas and discarding ones that don’t work.

    I am open to reason.  I am open to new ideas that are rational.

    As I have demonstrated, and as you have admitted by expressing your approval of Verified_But_Still_Denied you are irrational and closed to new ideas.

    How then can you possibly blame religion when the problem is that you are provably irrational and closed minded?

  47. @LoBornlytesThoughtPalace – Stupendous ignorance? You said:

    Before we can move on to know God as person we must first accept the fact the he exists. How will the Bible benefit you if you don’t first believe that God exists?

    I didn’t put words in your mouth. You’re clearly stating a need to believe in god prior to reading and understanding the Bible which is the word of god and the means of knowing god. Until you’ve read god’s word, how could you justifiably believe in god – as compared to just taking someone’s word for it? My statements stand, because you’re positing the need to presuppose something prior to doing any research. That’s not any more admirable or logical than presupposing Hobbits.

    And as far as getting off-topic, it was you who began derailing these comments by deflecting the discussion from the command to mutilate infants’ penises to the history of the Catholic Church and the existence of god. Again, the existence of anything can be “attainable through reason.” God doesn’t have some special property in that regard. Your views illustrate a lack of reason rather than any real rationale. I’ve done my fair share of studying the Bible, and that’s why I’m an atheist.

  48. @bakersdozen2 – Citing studies is a waist of time.  

    Since the Left took over academia the world has been deluged with studies that simply support leftist dogma, like global warming, that homosexuality is normal, that promiscuous sex leads to happiness, that government supported vice is virtuous, the list goes on and on.

    Plus, for every study you come up with for your point of view, their are studies that support the opposing view.

    In short, studies have dubious credibility.

  49. @cmdr_keen – No offense taken. My husband is a better authority on the subject than I am. He is a physician has a definite opinion from his 20 + years of practical experience as well as the 40 hours of CME he’s required to keep up with in order to stay Boarded in 2 specialties and current in his privileges to practice medicine at his hospital. 

    There really aren’t 2 sides of this debate from a medical stand point. Perhaps from a philosophical or theological one, but not a medical one. I don’t know of any Christian who would argue that circumcision is a sacramental necessity. But that doesn’t mean they aren’t out there. 

     

  50. @bakersdozen2 – What does this have to do with sin? You keep going back there but I’m not talking about sin, I’m talking about the idea that a god purposely creates human beings in a specific way and then forces them to mutilate themselves or deny their identity in order to please him. It’s a contradiction in his methods, not an indicator of human sin.

  51. @CoderHead – Those are my words and my meaning is clear.

    First know that God exists from reasoning it out.  Then if you want to know more, learn more from the source.

    What is so hard to understand about that.  There is no circular logic here.  Proofs are done through reason.

    Evidently you think that scientific proof is the only means of proof.  Science cannot be used to prove the existence of God.

    Einstein proved Relativity through reason alone decades before science was able to develop experiments proving it.

  52. @CoderHead –

    The struggles of a homosexual in resolving his/her identity with his/her religion seem to be illustrative of the most painful mental torture one could undergo. You realize that your attraction to the same sex is not a conscious decision so you must have been made that way but you realize that your god hates it when you entertain your natural desires. In order not to displease your god you must deny your nature – 

    which, presumably, he instilled in you when you were created

    .”

    These are your words I’m responding to. Your presumption is in the last line. 

  53. @bakersdozen2 – “There really aren’t 2 sides of this debate from a medical stand point”

    Could you clarify this, please? One doctor’s experiences doesn’t make an argument, just as one person’s experiences don’t create a rule.
    Are you saying that circumcision IS necessary, or ISN’T necessary, medically?

  54. @CoderHead – God does not force people to mutilate themselves nor does he force people to deny their identity in order to please him.

    Yet again you are defining things wrong yourself, and then using your error to redefine that which already has its own definition and meaning.

  55. @cmdr_keen – It’s an elective surgery. It certainly isn’t medically necessary to survival. But having the procedure done on your infant son is more healthful to him in the long run, and the majority of case studies bear this out. 

  56. @LoBornlytesThoughtPalace – Proofs are done in math. Einstein didn’t prove relativity through reason. He also didn’t invoke god to explain it. You may have reasoned out god’s existence, but there are plenty of people in the world who say your reasoning is faulty.

  57. @LoBornlytesThoughtPalace – I don’t suppose your opinion on circumcision is any more persuasive to coderhead than the WHO’s opinion is to you. 

    Having said that, when Liberals sympathetic to the “no circumcision” crowd actually stick to the facts in the majority of case studies than I think it’s safe to say their argument is based on preference and not the majority medical opinion.

  58. @bakersdozen2 – Whether an argument is received or not isn’t as important as whether it is a good argument.

    Arguments based on principle are simple, easy to understand and absolutely true.

    Liberals and atheists are trained to view facts as nothing more than opinion. So going out and getting facts tends to be a waste of time.

    Also, I write for others, not just the atheist.  For too long Christians and other good people of reason have simply left the field because it was considered to unpleasant to engage liberals and atheists in discussion.

    That gave them free reign and now we are paying the price.  Godless liberals now control all of our institutions.

    Modern people need to be exposed to the simple skill of thinking.  You’re way is the Godless liberal way which is the way to intellectual oblivion.

  59. @bakersdozen2 – I dispute that it’s more healthful in the long run. As a male who’s uncut, I have not had any issues, nor my brother who is likewise.

    There a myriad of other factors, such as personal hygiene and lifestyle choice, that can affect one’s health and to reduce it down to a matter of being cut or uncut is silly, to say the least. 
    Arguing for medically-reasoned circumcision is like arguing for removing the appendix right after birth as well. Sure, it’s not necessary for survival but “studies show people are more healthy without it”.
    Penn & Teller have an awesome smack-down of the myths surrounding circumcision.

  60. @CoderHead – Math is pure reason.  And before he did the math, Einstein did thought experiments.  He worked out everything in his mind through reasoned thinking before he ever did the math.

    And besides, you can’t do math unless you know what you are trying to express with it.  Math is a language.  If you don’t know what you are thinking, you will be unable to express it with the math.

  61. @LoBornlytesThoughtPalace – 

    “Whether an argument is received or not isn’t as important as whether it is a good argument.”
    A good argument is defined by it’s persuasiveness. Facts are involved and good argumentation. 
    This next line is an example of poor argumentation:

     “You only cite WHO and give it credibility because their studies on circumcision agree with your own opinion.”
    I don’t give credibility to WHO. The studies done support my argument. There is no principle to adhere to on the matter of circumcision except to promote the truth of the matter which is that it is proven to be beneficial. 

  62. @CoderHead – Human sexuality is directly connected to the sanctity of life and family.  Consequently, sex is only permitted in marriage.

    Sex outside marriage is not permitted in the Judeo-Christian tradition. That applies to everyone, not just homosexuals.

    That means that homosexuals may not marry since Judeo-Christianity defines marriage as the union of man and woman.

    Marriage in no way defines someone’s identity therefore it is incorrect to say that God wants homosexuals to change their identity in order to please him.

  63. @CoderHead –

     You are doing nothing more than speculating about Adam and Eve, signified by your liberal use of the terms, “I suppose” and, “It’s possible.”

    I told you that in my first comment. It’s speculation on both of our sides to know exactly why there was or wasn’t foreskins before Adam sinned.

     It doesn’t matter whether or not Adam was created with foreskin, because I’m talking about those people who are subject to the covenant with god requiring the removal of flesh.

    It does matter, as I already explained.

     Those people are men. They were all born (or formed by god in the womb) with foreskin. Women are not subject to this covenant, so are they all going to Hell?

    I don’t know why you’re asking this again. I already addressed this too.

    When you talk about “other consequences” for women, you’re talking about the curse laid on women in the Garden of Eden. That has nothing to do with this covenant and at the same time this curse was doled out the man received a curse as the consequence of his sin as well. Again, you’re just making things up as excuses for this practice. So are women all going to Hell?

    *sigh* – I’m not making excuses. You call something an excuse because you don’t comprehend it. Men were the authority figure, which is why God chose them for circumcision. Women are going to hell if they don’t believe in God. 

    I never said I was the arbiter of truth, but you’re not making a reasonable argument

    You’re sure acting like you are. It’s not unreasonable just because in your ignorance, you declare it to be so.

     You’re just throwing out wild speculation.

    lol – So are you. Who are you to say why God requires circumcision and to then say it’s wrong? It’s only wrong to you, not to God.

     And I love how you can completely brush aside my alternate point as moot because that’s not the way it is. Why does slicing off a piece of your penis make any more sense than cutting off one of ten fingers? 

    Because it’s a completely moot question. God didn’t tell us to cut off a finger. It doesn’t matter if circumcision is grotesque. That’s what God chose, to symbolize the hardness of our hearts and the need to remove it.

  64. @CoderHead – You’re acknowledging you understand my point now. That’s a good start. No I don’t agree with your contrived presumption. I know it’s a useful albeit unimaginative attempt to make a caricature of our position.

    That position being that we were created in the image of God, and through our own depravity choose to sin. You say you were raised a Christian so I presume you’re familiar with The Fall of man. Maybe that’s a wrong assumption on my part. 

    Some folks struggle with homosexuality. Nearly 100% of the population struggles with lust. I don’t think the Lord is accountable for a person’s decision to lust after their neighbor’s spouse; or cheat on their taxes; or harbor hate in their heart. Yes, he did create those who engage in that behavior but the decision to sin is our own. He doesn’t compel us to act on our temptations. 
    I suspect you have been taught this doctrine and have contrived the pseudo Christian presupposition for convenience sake. 
    It’s really a lot easier to just stick with the “There is no god and so I’ll do as I please” argument.  
        

  65. @bakersdozen2 – The problem with AIDS in Africa is rampant fornication (sexual immorality), not a condom or circumcision deficiency.

    So your entire foray into WHO AIDS studies and circumcision is a trip down the rabbit hole.

    And that’s exactly where the Godless liberals wants you.

    You’ve taken yourself out of action by doing exactly what the Godless liberal want in the way he wants you to do it.

  66. @LoBornlytesThoughtPalace – If you had done any research, you’d see that those factors are taken into consideration. Nevertheless, your point about rampant fornication (though entirely true) has nothing to do with the overall benefits of circumcision. That is what we’re discussing… the relative benefits of circumcision…. not the moral compass of the African people. 

    I’d say you’re the one following the white rabbit. 

  67. @bakersdozen2 – You are the one making the argument not I. That means you are the rabbit of whatever color.

    All I’m doing is pointing out that your method of argumentation is a waste of time because you are being a puppet of the ones who programmed to argue that way.

    I say, “Get your mind back!”

    We need to understand that we are at spiritual and intellectual war with people who have led us into a Dark Age (48,000,000 slaughtered unborn babies and counting).

    Doing things their way makes you one of them.

  68. @CoderHead –

     So we’re both speculating about something that can’t be known and then arguing over whose speculation is more reasonable? That sounds stupid. I propose we just quit it.
    I agree.

  69. @LoBornlytesThoughtPalace – Listen, If I had time to sit here and coddle your insecurities I would… but I don’t. 

    Here’s a piece of advice about being effective. Take it or leave it.  Don’t be so easily intimidated by other people. You’re doing more damage to your “one man crusade” by acting like a cornered animal and striking at everyone in the room. 
    You’re argumentation style and frequent insults will not win anyone to your side. You are your own worst enemy. 

  70. @cmdr_keen – @bakersdozen2 – @bakersdozen2 – So let me see if I can get this straight:

    1. God doesn’t find the foreskin displeasing; he doesn’t particularly care about it one way or another although he does specifically create all human males with foreskin intact.

    2. The act of removing the foreskin in Old Testament times was a covenant between god and his chosen people and had nothing to do with health concerns or god’s opinion that foreskin is yucky.

    3. Since Jesus died, circumcision is no longer necessary as a covenant with god.

    4. Circumcision is an elective surgery performed on an infant without his informed consent that some people do for religious purposes because they’re misguided but that others do for medical reasons which have not been conclusively proven.

    Is that about right?

  71. @CoderHead – Pretty much, though I’d add that in the US it’s now more-or-less a given that male babies will be circumcised as par-for-the-course, much like within hours if not minutes of birth they get the first of several immunization shots.

    Oh, and some do it for aesthetic/hygienic reasons as well.
    Very rarely – if ever – will you come across a modern American couple that circumcise their child for purely religious reasons.

  72. @CoderHead – Well, I think it is conclusive. But yes, it’s true that circumcision is performed without the child’s consent. 

    I’ve got to be honest though, if a child’s consent were needed in order for them to receive medical treatment most kids would be in sad shape. I know my kids would not have been vaccinated, had their cavities filled, or done anything contrary to their immediate pleasure…… including eating their leafy greens.     πŸ˜€

  73. @bakersdozen2 – I understand what you’re saying but it isn’t “medical treatment” I’m against. It’s elective (and, arguably, cosmetic) surgery without informed consent. Thanks for helping me understand your view.

    So, to the next point, is it your opinion that homosexuality isn’t natural but instead is a state of intentional sin against god? Would you say that god doesn’t ever create anybody homosexual?

  74. @CoderHead – I would separate the creation of a person who is bent toward sin from creating a person with a propensity toward a particular sin.

    Does God know that we’re going to struggle with sin?  Yes.
    Does God design and create us programmed towards a specific and pre determined sin?  No.

    That would be my position on homosexuality and every other sin. But here’s what I think about praying away sins. There are people who struggle with homosexuality. It is a genuine temptation for them. 

     Is it their only sexual option… no. It may be preferred but then again, most men (on some level) would prefer not to be monogamous and be able to bed whoever they’d like. Nearly 100% of the male population has engaged in mental adultery. 100% of the population will be tempted toward sexual sin until the day they die.

    Remember, I’m giving you my worldview. I understand you don’t see sin the same way. But I think I’m giving a fairly straight summary of the biblical perspective on sin.This is not just my particular definitions of sin off the top of my head.

    At any rate, I don’t think the homosexual will be cured of temptation anymore than I think my husband can be prayed away from having a tendency to lust after a beautiful woman.  I don’t believe we can be “cured” of temptation.  Even Christ was “tempted in all things.”  

    So yeah, sin is sin and we all deal with it. Even those who don’t believe in God have to deal with violating their own principles at some point in their lives. Or changing their rules as they go…..

  75. @bakersdozen2 – So you’re labeling attraction to the same sex “sin.” Why would homosexuality be any more of a sin than heterosexuality? I mean, heterosexuals lust after each other, have sex before marriage, perform deviant sex acts (even within the bonds of marriage) and spread disease. What makes that – as a whole – any less offensive to god than homosexuality? And what makes it OK to say that kind of behavior (heterosexuality) is natural and hard-wired but that homosexuality never could be? That’s the part that makes no sense to me.

  76. @CoderHead – No, not sexual attraction per se. A man (or woman) would have to be a stone not to recognize that Megan Fox is Hot (my opinion of her anyway). 

    “I mean, heterosexuals lust after each other, have sex before marriage, perform deviant sex acts (even within the bonds of marriage) and spread disease. What makes that – as a whole – any less offensive to god than homosexuality?” 

    It isn’t any different from a scriptural perspective. Though I don’t know what you would consider sexually deviant behavior within the boundaries of marriage. I don’t see scripture addressing what is acceptable and not acceptable within marriage. If it’s coerced, I’d say it was sin.

    “And what makes it OK to say that kind of behavior (heterosexuality) is natural and hard-wired but that homosexuality never could be? That’s the part that makes no sense to me.”

    Your world view is different than what scripture puts forward. We can only argue from our point from our perspectives. But I’d say that there is a strong argument from nature that it is not “natural” or a strong position from an evolutionary/ natural selection standpoint. 



  77. @bakersdozen2 – When I said “deviant” practices within marriage I meant any kind of sexual practice which is not expressly designed for procreation. It’s difficult to argue that sometimes though because not all Christians agree that god intended sex strictly for procreation. However, I’ve seen tons of Christians argue that homosexuality is wrong because it can never result in procreation. Plus, married couples can engage in the same “types” of sex in which homosexuals engage…is that wrong?

    I’m curious as to your statement about homosexuality not being natural, since there are multitudes of well-documented studies on homosexuality in the animal kingdom.

    Oh, and I really don’t like Megan Fox at all. 

  78. @CoderHead – I think it’s silly for any Christian to seriously argue that non-procreative sex is deviant. What are old folks to do?  πŸ˜›

    Or couples who are sterile? Or couples like me and my husband who have had all the kids we can physically have?  Children are a blessing no doubt but you can’t extrapolate from that a single purpose for sex. Scripture seems to allow for a lot of variety of non pro creative pleasures (Song of Solomon). 

    “I’m curious as to your statement about homosexuality not being natural, since there are multitudes of well-documented studies on homosexuality in the animal kingdom.”

    I would not argue that the natural world does not suffer from the effects of the Fall. (Romans 8:22) So from that stand point sin is a “natural” state. I don’t think God originally intended for animals to eat their young. Yet, this is not classified as “sin” because animals aren’t created in the image of God. They don’t have souls and aren’t given the same privileges of divine adoption.  

    “Oh, and I really don’t like Megan Fox at all. 



    Honestly, I’ve never seen any of her movies. I don’t know anything about her.  I’ve only seen her picture on magazine covers in the checkout line. I’d say the same thing  about Angelina Jolie or Catherine Zeta Jones (as far as looks go).  Actually, I don’t think women need to be knockouts to provoke lust. Lol, It’s true. 

     

  79. @bakersdozen2 – I think it’s silly for Christians to argue that, too. But I find that if a Christian is arguing against something (for instance, gay marriage) then they’ll latch onto whatever argument they can, even if it doesn’t make any sense. The procreation argument is definitely one of those.

    I have a really hard time understanding the “Earth isn’t perfect because man sinned” concept. How could plants, animals, and the planet be physically and behaviorally altered due to disobedience? Even with a supernatural realm as a given, it doesn’t add up. Even when I was a Christian and wanted to believe everything in the Bible it didn’t make any sense.

  80. @CoderHead – 

    “Even when I was a Christian and wanted to believe everything in the Bible it didn’t make any sense.”
    I’m the first person to admit my own ignorance regarding specific doctrine or the reasons behind God’s decisions. Christians who claim to have insight into the exact “how’s & “whys” of God’s actions are deceiving themselves. To know these things with complete certainty would be to know the mind and the motives of God.

    I don’t know “How” God created the world.  But that’s ok.Materialists don’t know “How” life came from nonliving material. They’re speculating and yet they believe in abiogenesis. 

    If incomplete knowledge were a hinderance to aligning oneself to a particular philosophy, no one would believe in anything. Even Atheists couldn’t claim to be Atheists. 

    It’s after much study and on the basis of faith that I’ve settled on my belief system.Which is (more or less) what everyone does. 

  81. @bakersdozen2 – “They’re speculating and yet they believe in abiogenesis.”

    Actually, that’s a misnomer. People typically don’t “believe” in abiogenesis (or gravity) but accept it as the most plausible explanation given our current understanding. The caveat is that as our knowledge increases our understanding of this concept will change and we’ll eventually have a better or more complete explanation.

    I find it’s not so (typically) with people who believe in god(s). They’re positive god exists and that it’s their conception of god specifically. There’s very little, if anything, that could convince them otherwise.

  82. @CoderHead – 

     “People typically don’t “believe” in abiogenesis (or gravity) but accept it as the most plausible explanation given our current understanding.”


    Apologists, men like William Lane Craig, say the same thing about God. Dr. Craig admits that he can not prove “god” but believes evidence points to a Grand Designer. Lay Christians are similar to “run of the mill” Materialists when they debate their different perspectives. They don’t speak in terms of the theoretical but in terms of facts or truths. A casual reading of any Theist’s/ Atheist’s blog betrays how strongly they feel as well as how they practically function. There isn’t anything wrong with this. They’re just demonstrating their beliefs.

    Sane people admit that they can’t produce God on command or demonstrate life springing from non-life. But we feel confident enough to call each other names for not subscribing to the others view. (not that everyone uses this tactic, of course)
     

  83. @LoBornlytesThoughtPalace – 

    Answer the blasted questions or at least reply to the arguments instead of dancing around them, or if your opponent is defining a word wrongly so that the question or argument doesn’t make grammatical sense, then tell them and ask them to clarify what they actually meant, the fact you have not done either shows you are not willing in the slightest to learn about what Coder actually thinks and knows.
    You also have the audacity to tell Coder about what he thinks and knows without any kind of proof whatsoever, prove that Coder is applying his ‘own definition’ to things, prove that he hasn’t taken the time to learn, if Coder had got something wrong, the correct way to respond is “(insert claim here) is incorrect because (reason)”
    You also have to prove that Coder knows nothing of the Bible, God and that atheists are unreasonable.Because I could just as easily claim that atheists are the ones that are right about the Bible and right about God, and that theists are unreasonable.

    Bible.By the way, if we knew God of course we wouldn’t be atheists.