By the time you're old enough to make the decision for yourself it's a more painful and uncomfortable procedure. If I wasn't circumcised I sure as hell wouldn't get it done at 18+.

I live in Australia where you can admit you don't believe in god and still be elected for public office. Everything here isn't all about religion like in the US. Ancient societies collapse and their gods stop being worshipped, those gods will not always be. Why is your God any different.

The Maya also believed in a doomsday scenario, that day came and went, and we are still here. Your judgement day is designed to make people feel fear, it's a classic control mechanism that the elite used and still use to keep order in their populations. Why do you think every time you switch the TV on the news is always negative? Who do you think wrote the Bible, an uneducated pauper with no ulterior motives or a rich nobleman with many ulterior motives? Why do you think Jesus was portrayed as a poor man? It was so the majority of the population, who were also poor, could relate to him, making it easier to pass the religion off as legitimate. Turing was a sinner according to your religion, yet you happily use a computer everyday. You really need to wisen up before you waste your whole life in a bubble. Stop living by the politics of division, treat people humanely and just enjoy your life, it will be gone in the blink of an eye.

New news articles are popping up everyday perpetuating the same tired old lies about MC. And now they are calling it SMC (Safe Male Circumcision). Apparently the men being circumcised don't feel any pain during or after the operation. Funny how selectively they use words in MC articles, so manipulative.

In a funny irony the airing skirts the men have to wear after the operation, along with the long waiting time before they can start having sex again of 6 weeks, is causing many men to not want to pursue circumcision because they fear their wives will cheat on them during the waiting period.

http://www.newvision.co.ug/news/6705...tionships.html

Amazing the way supporters of MC turn to blanket statements to try and de-rail an important message. Sometimes I think we are living in 1520 instead of 2015. Do what you want, it's your bodies and your kids bodies, it's none of my business. I'm not here to create division. Bye.

I don't live in the USA and I really feel sorry for you I hope you belevie before it is too late as you can die at anytime and I dont want anyone to go to hell its not a nice place

Ok, thankyou for the concern. I have a grandmother in her mid 90s who gets such great comfort from God, something that has kept her going since my grandfather died over 30 years ago, so I understand your position. I wish you all the best for the future. I know you don't mean to cause harm, and neither do I. I think we can both agree to disagree on this one. I'm from Australia, and here we just say what we think, so I may have come across a bit harsh. I think this discussion has run it's course and I probably won't follow it any longer as I don't want to cause any divisions, bye.

Your point of view comes directly from Genesis 3:5 - For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

Here are the double lies being offered by Satan to Eve springing out of the same principle behind his botched coup attempt; first, that she would be like gods, and thus independent, able to rule over herself apart from God, and secondly, there is not one God, but many gods; each is sovereign over himself or herself. The doctrine of autonomous-self, or often referred to as “free-will”, whether it be “Christian” or non-Christian one, though may not appear explicitly, originates from the same spirit by which Lucifer rebelled against God, that is, the spirit of self-idolatry.

To be autonomous means to be a law unto oneself. An autonomous creature would be answerable to no one. He would have no governor, least of all a sovereign governor. It is logically impossible to have a sovereign God existing at the same time as an autonomous creature. The two concepts are utterly incompatible. To think of their coexistence would be like imagining the meeting of an immovable object and an irresistible force. What would happen? If the object moved, then it could no longer be considered immovable. If it failed to move, then the irresistible force would no longer be irresistible.

You answered my other question. You believe Society and now science as the rule of thumb or standbearer for both morality and ethics. Nazi Germany legalized the killing of Jews, disabled, and homosexuals. By your standard, they had every right to do so.

And like science, one paradigm is often discarded for new discovery. Concerning moral relativism even Einstein was appalled when learning that people were applying his theory of relativism to a domain of absolute truth. Post modernism is ugly, and it suggests: what is true for you is not true for me. Live and let live, you say, if that be the case, you shouldn't have an issue with what Nazi Germany does or others performing circumcision. Do no harm is rather Wicca (witchery) I might add, and sometimes goes against survival of the fittest. If you are for charity, would that not fall under the domain of the religious? And does that act not undermine evolution?

Another words, some believe society is the standard bearer for morality. As society changes, truth changes, and resulting flow of morality and ethics. The norm is considered the democratic rule, and if enough people believe something true then it is moral and ethical. Likewise, will you contend that what Nazi Germany had done was wrong, and at the same time suggest you will not force your own standard upon others? Will you abandon your principals by acknowledging the flaws in logic?

I contend, morality and ethics are outside the domain of science. It is amazing that everything in the universe operates according to certain laws, yet certain people reject the Giver of Law.

Shim

Look I do understand your point, in that it could be dangerous to allow morals to be dictated by the whims of the voting public. But what is the alternative? To follow a outdated religion that has no relevance to the people who adopted it from the middle east? The European tribes were forcibly Christianised remember.

Most people just want to live peacefully, to try and gain some sense of happiness and enjoyment in their short lives, and do the best they can to act humanely.

Sure ethics change, and sometimes they don't, I mean although a lobotomy is now seen as unethical, the practice still operates today under the guise of a lobectomy and through the use of drugs that chemically do the same thing as a lobotomy used to.

Isn't the bigger question giving people a choice in how they live their lives? And giving people the ability to question things. That is what sets the west apart and makes us humane. Freedom. You know the thing America was founded on.

I suggest you address your own presuppositions and prejudices. Because an absolute truth is timeless does not mean it is old. If you have not read Holy Scripture for yourself, how can you object to its evidence?

Shim

How do you know that ? Have you visited it personally, got pictures ? or are you just taking someones word for it.

Read the bible its the word of God

That you believe the Bible is the word of God is something you believe on faith, which is fine for you. However, there is no compelling evidence for this, and without such evidence, I have no reason to believe it. You cannot put faith-based beliefs on the same level as verifiable fact.