Is circumcision ethical?

[shimei]

Originally Posted by LostInCyberLand

God doesn't have any place in anything now, it's a personal belief that is not to be pushed onto others. When you have your autonomous humanoid robot walking around doing house chores one day will you honestly look at it and still believe God is of any relevance? The truth is we humans are the gods.

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.

I think the state religions originally set the ethics and morals society followed at a time when people did not know how the world worked religion provided an answer. But now science provides that answer and so has more substance as a platform to base our ethical decision making on. But then again society is made up of people, so in a way it really is people who set these morals and ethics and create these religions. I think now we have democratic governance around the world it is people who are setting ethics and morals. We thought a lobotomy was ethical not so long ago, and now we would never consider it ethical.

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