Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Note the genital mutilation of children directly on scriptures command.
Note the events of 9/11 being the results of people believing that virgins awaited them in the afterlife due to scripture.. the list isn't endless, but it goes back to through the religion's history.
Circumcision isn't evil at all.
Please note that I am asking for CHRISTIAN evils. Not Muslim ones.
Oh, and I'm still waiting for your thoughts on my last posts.
Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Do you believe that Neil Donald Walsch was directly in communication with god?
I don't know, who is he?
Its absolutely evil is if not done for medical reasons, and preemptively done to you at infancy because of someones belief in religion..
(see next post)
Actually you asked for christian texts preaching evil and I gave you it in spades.... Lets not shift goalposts constantly.
Im still waiting for your answer on "what caused god".
Hes the man who wrote "Conversations with god" books 1-3 and other follow up works. Now....who is god?
History of Circumcision
This index page links to material relating to the origin and history of male circumcision. Material is indexed in chronological order of publication.
Introduction
The practice of male genital mutilation is far older than recorded history. Certainly, it is far older than the Biblical account of Abraham (Genesis 17). It seems to have originated in eastern Africa long before this time.6
Many theories have been advanced to explain the origin of genital mutilation. One theory postulates that circumcision began as a way of "purifying" individuals and society by reducing sexuality and sexual pleasure. Human sexuality was seen as dirty or impure in some societies; hence cutting off the pleasure-producing parts was the obvious way to "purify" someone.
It is now known that the male foreskin, or prepuce, is the principal location of erogenous sensation in the human male (see Anatomy.) Removal of the prepuce substantially reduces erogenous sensation.12,16 Therefore (in the appropriate cultural context), circumcision is revealed as a sacrifice of "sinful" human enjoyment (in this earthly life), for the sake of holiness in the afterlife.12
The Jews adopted circumcision as a religious ritual8,10,15,18 and preserved this prehistoric practice into modern times.10,16,18 The circumcision of Abraham removed only the very tip that extended beyond the glans penis.8,17,22,28 Moses and his sons were not circumcised. (Exodus 4:25) Although Moses apparently prohibited circumcision during the 40 years in the wilderness,15,18 (Joshua 5:5) Joshua reinstituted circumcision at Gilgal after the death of Moses.15,18 (Joshua 5:2-10) It is interesting to note that after the Israelites were circumcised, they immediately became soldiers in Joshua's army for the conquest of Palestine. (Joshua 6:1-3)
In contrast to the Jews, the Greeks and the Romans placed a high value on the prepuce.31 The Romans passed several laws to protect the prepuce by prohibiting circumcision.31
Much later in the Hellenic period, about 140 C.E., the circumcision procedure was modified to make it impossible for a Jew to appear to be an uncircumcised Greek.8,18,25 A radical new procedure called peri'ah was introduced by the priests and rabbis. In this procedure the foreskin was stripped away from the glans, with which it is fused in the infant (See Normal.) In a painful procedure known today as a synechotomy, more foreskin was removed than before and the injury was correspondingly greater. With the introduction of peri'ah, the glans could not easily be recovered, and so no Jewish male would easily be able to appear as an uncircumcised Greek.8,18,25
It may have been at this time that the Pondus Judaeus (also known as Judaeum Pondum), a bronze weight worn by Jews on the residual foreskin to stretch it back into a foreskin,8,18,23 gained popularity amongst Jewish males. This lessened the ugly appearance of the bare exposed circumcised penis.18 This restorative procedure was known by the Greek word epispasm,8 or "rolling inward."
The third stage of ritual circumcision, the Messisa or Metzitzah, was not introduced until the Talmudic period (500-625 C.E).8,17,23 In Metzitzah, the mohel (ritual circumciser) sucks blood from the penis of the circumcised infant with his mouth.31 This procedure has been responsible for the death of many Jewish babies due to infection.13 In modern times, a glass tube is sometimes used instead.
The Reform movement within Judaism considered circumcision to be a cruel practice.17 The Reform movement at Frankfort declared in 1843 that circumcision was not necessary.17,21
The Christians took a strong stand against circumcision in the first century. Christians rejected circumcision at the Council at Jerusalem.17 (Acts 15) St. Paul, the apostle to the gentiles, taught parents that they should not circumcise their children. (Acts 21:25) In a reference to the old practices of genital mutilation, St. Paul warned Titus to beware of the "circumcision group." (Titus 1:10-16)
The modern use of Hebrew circumcision as a medicalized practice dates from about 1865 in England and about 1870 in the US.10 The procedure accepted for medical use essentially was the Jewish peri'ah. Moscucci reports that circumcision was imposed in an attempt to prevent masturbation.15 Gollaher further describes the history of medicalized circumcision.10 No scientific studies were carried out to determine the efficacy and safety of circumcision prior to its introduction into medical practice,10 nor were any studies conducted to determine the social effects of imposing genital alteration surgery on a large portion of the population.
South Koreans started to circumcise children during the American trusteeship following World War II. The American cultural practice of circumcision became nearly universal in South Korea after the Korean War of 1950-52.24
In 1949, Gairdner wrote that circumcision was medically unnecessary and non-beneficial,3 and contraindicated because of complications and deaths.3 The British National Health Service (NHS) deleted non-therapeutic neonatal circumcision from the schedule of covered procedures in 1950. The incidence of neonatal circumcision in the United Kingdom declined sharply to a very low level after publication of this article after the procedure was delisted by the NHS.
America waited another 20 years before addressing the problem of non-therapeutic circumcision. The Journal of the American Medical Association published an influential landmark article by Dr. E. Noel Preston, Captain, MC, USAF.4 Dr. Preston established that there is no therapeutic or prophylactic benefit to circumcision. He also cited "undesirable psychologic, sexual, and medico-legal difficulties."4
Influenced by Preston, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), in 1971, issued a statement that "[t]here are no valid medical indications for circumcision in the neonatal period."10 This marked the beginning of the end of America's infatuation with male circumcision. The incidence of male neonatal circumcision in the U.S. peaked in 1971 and began a slow decline that continues to the present day.
Recent History
The AAP convened an "ad hoc Task Force" under the chair of Hugh C. Thompson, M.D., to review the issue of circumcision in 1975. The 1975 Task Force reaffirmed the 1971 AAP statement.10 The Canadian Paediatric Society (CPS) also took a position in 1975 that circumcision is medically unnecessary.
The matter rested there until 1985, when retrospective data collected from U.S. Army medical records by Thomas Wiswell, M.D. seemed to show a somewhat higher rate of urinary tract infection (UTI) in non-circumcised boys. Careful examination of Wiswell's methods and data revealed many methodological flaws which rendered his conclusions questionable and unreliable. This created new controversy about the value of neonatal circumcision. The Canadian Paediatric Society examined Wiswell's data in 1989 and found it to be "insufficiently compelling" to cause it to change its 1975 policy statement, which is against circumcision.
The National Organization of Circumcision Information Resource Centers (NOCIRC) was formed in 1986. The mandate of NOCIRC is to provide accurate information regarding male circumcision, to promote children's rights, and to shed light on the medical mistakes of the past. Professor George C. Denniston, M.D., M.P.H., founded Doctors Opposing Circumcision (DOC) in 1995 to promote the health advantages of genital integrity within the medical community.
The Circumcision Information and Resource Pages (CIRP) were created in 1995 to provide a source of accurate information about circumcision on the World Wide Web.
The development of new information in the medical literature since 1975 caused the AAP to revisit the matter of circumcision in 1989. A new Task Force under the chair of Edgar J. Schoen, M.D., examined new data about neonatal pain, behavior changes, and loss of sexual sensitivity secondary to neonatal circumcision. New data also conclusively established the role of the human papillomavirus (HPV) in the pathogenesis of genital cancers. This removed any lingering belief that the prepuce somehow caused cancer.
The Canadian Paediatric Society revisited the matter of neonatal circumcision in 1996. A new evidence-based policy statement was issued that strengthened its 1975 recommendation, stating that circumcision is medically unnecessary. The CPS recommended: "Circumcision should not be routinely performed."
The incidence of neonatal circumcision in the US has continued to decline, and stood at only 60% in 1996. In the same year, the Australian College of Paediatrics (ACP) reported that the incidence of neonatal circumcision in Australia has continued its decline to 10%. The ACP termed circumcision traumatic, a possible violation of human rights, and called for parents to be provided with full and complete information about circumcision before making a decision.
John R. Taylor and colleagues published a landmark article in 1996 that described original research into the anatomy and histology of the foreskin. The research showed that the foreskin is highly innervated tissue with the characteristics of a sensory organ designed to provide erogenous sensation.16
The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), in a joint statement, reclassified neonatal circumcision from "routine" to "elective" in 1997.19 The change in policy was announced the year after the publication of Taylor's important article that describes in detail the injury inherent in every circumcision. This action removes any suggestion that circumcision is beneficial or that it is recommended by medical authorities. It may also be an attempt to shift legal liability for the injury that is inherent in every child circumcision from the doctor to the parents.
Persistent criticism of the obvious flaws of the supplemental 1989 Report of the Task Force on Circumcision has caused the AAP to distance itself from its own report. The AAP has removed its policy statement from its website. The AAP convened a new Task Force under the chair of Carole Marie Lannon, MD, in 1997 to develop a new evidence-based policy statement which was released in March 1999. After fully reviewing the medical evidence, the Task Force concluded that routine neonatal circumcision cannot be recommended because of lack of any proved benefit. It said that the benefits are "potential" (i.e. they are unproven).
The Council on Scientific Affairs of the American Medical Association issued a policy report in December 1999 that re-classified neonatal circumcision as a "non-therapeutic" procedure.30 This may have a medico-legal impact.
The ratio of boys circumcised to boys preserved intact continues to decline in America. In 2001, it had further declined to a ratio of 55 percent circumcised, while the percentage of boys preserved intact had risen to 45 percent.36
Highlights
The Encyclopædia Britannica article from the 9th edition (1876) provides us with a Victorian view of circumcision. Interestingly, it does not mention any alleged medical purposes.2
Gairdner's historic world famous landmark classic medical article (1949) is presented.3
Preston's historic influential medical article (1970) is presented.4
Paige (1978) provides us with a history of cirumcision in the US. She discusses the fear of masturbation that lead to the commencement of the circumcision of boys.5
DeMeo (1989) says geographical patterns of global distributions of the male and female genital mutilations among native, non-Western peoples, along with history and archaeology, suggest their genesis in the deserts of Northeast Africa and the near East, with a subsequent diffusion outward into sub-Saharan, Oceania and possibly even into parts of the New World.6
Montagu (1991) uses anthropological knowledge to give insight into the origins of genital mutilation.7
Bigelow (1992) traces the development of various forms of circumcision within Judaism through the centuries and into modern times.8
Voskuil (1994) suggests that the identical 28 day lunar month and the monthly menstruation cycle of the woman are linked to the origin of circumcision.9
Gollaher (1994) describes the transformation of ritual circumcision into a medical procedure.10
McLaren gives us a not very complimentary portrait of Dr. John Harvey Kellogg who promoted circumcision and corn flakes as a cure for masturbation.11
Warren and Bigelow (1994) discuss the sacrificial origin of circumcision.12
Frederick M. Hodges, Jerry W. Warner. The Right to Our Own Bodies: The History of Male Circumcision in the U.S. M.E.N. Magazine 1995 (November).14
Moscucci reports the results of her research into the introduction of male circumcision to prevent masturbation in the late 19th century.15
The Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion (1997) reviews the history of Jewish circumcision.16
DeMeo (1996) revisits his earlier work and discusses several theories regarding the origin of male and female circumcision. DeMeo identifies anxiety about sexual pleasure as the underlying psychological reason for both male and female circumcision.17
Schultheiss and others (1998) provide an account of the long history of man's attempts to restore the prepuce after unwanted circumcision.21
Dunsmuir and Gordon (1999) provide a good general history of circumcision with particular attention paid to the history of the development of surgical technique.22
Kim and colleagues provide a history of circumcision in South Korea.23
Brandes and McAninch review the history of efforts to undo the effects of male circumcision.24
Frederick Mansfield Hodges (1999) unveils the medical treatment of phimosis and paraphimosis in the classical medical literature.26
James E. Peron illuminates the development of circumcision in Jewish history from a minor procedure into a major mutilation, and how this most mutilating and injurious form of circumcision was accepted into medical practice.27
Frederick Mansfield Hodges, D. Phil., has researched the Greek and Roman attitudes toward the prepuce. He reports in this profusely illustrated document that the Greeks and Romans placed a high value on the prepuce, preferred long tapering prepuces, and later the Romans protected the prepuce by law.30
John M. Ephron reports that German Jews used medical arguments to justify and promote the practice of male circumcision to Gentiles during the 19th and early 20th centuries.31
John Evelyn observed a Jewish circumcision at Rome in 1645 and recorded it in his diary.32
Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Its absolutely evil is if not done for medical reasons, and preemptively done to you at infancy because of someones belief in religion..
(see next post)Actually you asked for christian texts preaching evil and I gave you it in spades.... Lets not shift goalposts constantly.
Now....who is god?
You seem to have a strange sense of what "evil" is then. Cercumcision does not negatively affect the person at all. I see no reason to consider it evil. Medically unnecessary, perhaps, but that is a FAR stretch from evil. Torture is evil, Murder is evil. It's ridiculous to try and place circumcision in the same group as these.
No I didn't. I asked for Christian practices today that are evil. I have already explained why your previous examples do not show what you say they show.
Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Im still waiting for your answer on "what caused god".
You must be trolling me at this point. I have literally answered this question at least three times now. I will not do so again. Go back through my posts and find it, I didn't hide it or anything.
Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Now....who is god?
Read the Bible and find out.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
No, it fails even harder there.
You need to support your points. If you feel an argument fails in some regard, by all means explain why.
I don't know how we got on to the subject of cutting skin...but I for one am glad I got the procedure done before I was too old. If not, I would have gotten it done.
My son wasn't done very well at all...got an infection. Poor little guy. 🙁 Broke my heart. He's not my biological son, so I wasn't around when he was born.
Makes me think that if my son wasn't done very well...there's bound to be those on the opposite end of the spectrum...and that breaks my heart too. 🙁
It's a tough decision, as a parent. Only like...what? 3-5% get infections without the procedure? That's a small percentage. There's nothing in my religion that says we should do it (it was for pre-Christ Jews, only...is how we look at the Law of Moses).
Anyway, those were my two cents.
Originally posted by TacDavey
You must be trolling me at this point. I have literally answered this question at least three times now. I will not do so again. Go back through my posts and find it, I didn't hide it or anything.
😆
I swear to double bacon cheeseburgers (with mayo) that this guy is not me. But he sure sounds like a replica. 😆
Originally posted by TacDavey
That's just the first part, the argument isn't done. I also don't see how the second part disproves the first....
I know it is just the first part. Did you read the link Symmetric Chaos gave about the Kalam Cosmological Argument? It explains the fallacies perfectly.
As far as I can tell you never stated the full argument, but I believe it is the following:
1. Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.
2. The universe has a beginning of its existence.
3. Thus the universe has a cause of its existence.
4. This first uncaused cause must transcend physical reality.
5. This uncaused cause that transcends physical reality is the description of God.
6. Therefore God exists.
If it's not please state your version of it so we can have a real discussion. (and dadudemon, please state your examples of how God can prove himself, kthx)
Here's a couple of problems with the argument:
Problem 1: About Statement 1 we don't know whether that is true, perhaps there are things that begin to exist without a cause, perhaps our cause and effect thinking is too limited outside of our universe.
Problem 2: About Statement 2 we don't know whether that is true either, the Universe may very well be an infinite repetition.
Now lets assume 3 is right:
Problem 3: Statement 4 again is unknowable and ill-defined. Why would that cause not be part of physical reality?
Problem 4: Statement 5: This is an odd and new definition of God, it is definitely not the definition that encompasses the God of the Bible, it may be just one small trait of him. It could just as well be a non-sentient spark that transcends physical reality.
So even if there were no other problems with this line of reasoning, you have not proven that the God you worship exists, just that something outside physical-reality exists, and you call it God.
Additionally there's more problems as illustrated in this link: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dan_barker/kalamity.html
So you must understand why this argument is severely lacking and obviously can't convince someone that thinks about it, but you said you had more "proofs" so why not give another one and we can see if that one is logically correct and in line with reality as we know it.
Originally posted by TacDavey
You seem to have a strange sense of what "evil" is then. Cercumcision does not negatively affect the person at all. I see no reason to consider it evil. Medically unnecessary, perhaps, but that is a FAR stretch from evil. Torture is evil, Murder is evil. It's ridiculous to try and place circumcision in the same group as these.No I didn't. I asked for Christian practices today that are evil. I have already explained why your previous examples do not show what you say they show.
You must be trolling me at this point. I have literally answered this question at least three times now. I will not do so again. Go back through my posts and find it, I didn't hide it or anything.
Read the Bible and find out.
You need to support your points. If you feel an argument fails in some regard, by all means explain why.
Incorrect.
Actually, it physically inhibits/affects sexual enjoyment. Shows what you know, eh? You can't even spell it.
Already did: No one can agree on who he/it is though, hence you non-answering again..
I've already supported them, 🙂 You're just being obstinate, or just cherry picking what you like from the evidence.
....And you made an empirical statement that the biblical god is God.
Now prove it.
'Cause I'm not swayed by your non-arguments at all.
Shame. You come on like you've got the answers, attempting so passionately to decry my argument, yet posts like this are all you put forth, in absence of reasoning.....
"You must be trolling me at this point. I have literally answered this question at least three times now. I will not do so again. Go back through my posts and find it, I didn't hide it or anything."
I could say the same to you with unerring confidence of accuracy. 😐
Your reliance on flaming, is indicative of your troll status and of your frustration in not being able to put convincing points across.
Seen it a million times.
Dont be grumpy. Go out and enjoy the sun. Bask in it's rays:
But just dont be telling me that The bible's version of God put it there without any evidence that it exists....for i will have to laugh in your face. 🙁
Any ontological argument -- no matter how logical or well-conceived -- can not serve as proof of "God's" existence because it does not directly reveal any transcendent reality. All it reveals, all one directly experiences, are premises and a conclusion, the latter, at best, inferring God's existence.
And now, forgive me for the lousy segue, but I've been itchin' to post this since I first recently found it (forgive me if it's been done: it's really more of a counter to the Intelligent Design argument for God's existence, although again, at best, that argument -- even w/o this finding -- only infers an Intelligent Designer: it is not direct evidence. In any event)...
Originally posted by dadudemon
😆I swear to double bacon cheeseburgers (with mayo) that this guy is not me. But he sure sounds like a replica. 😆
Of you? I'm not sure you want to be proud of that fact at this point... 😬 I am also not sure if I trust the truthfulness of a statement swore on a sandwich (even with mayo). 😆
Originally posted by Bardock42
I know it is just the first part. Did you read the link Symmetric Chaos gave about the Kalam Cosmological Argument? It explains the fallacies perfectly.
I did, however it's rather hard to respond to a link. I would prefer that points be brought up here, where I can quote and respond to them.
Originally posted by Bardock42
As far as I can tell you never stated the full argument, but I believe it is the following:1. Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.
2. The universe has a beginning of its existence.
3. Thus the universe has a cause of its existence.
4. This first uncaused cause must transcend physical reality.
5. This uncaused cause that transcends physical reality is the description of God.
6. Therefore God exists.If it's not please state your version of it so we can have a real discussion.
No... That isn't quite how my second part was going to go.
The second part goes like this:
Now that we know the universe has a cause we have to figure out what that cause is. There are two options.
1.) An all powerful being with a will of it's own and the ability to create universes.
or
2.) An eternal set of necessary and sufficient conditions for the creation of a universe. (Basically anything not God.)
But it can't be number 2, and here's why. Whenever a set of necessary and sufficient conditions for an event are met, the event will always take place no matter what. For example, a sparks conditions might be: a certain amount of heat, friction, etc etc. Once these conditions are met, a spark will always take place. No exceptions.
However, if you hold to the universe being created by an eternal (since time came into being at the Big Bang, whatever created the universe had to be outside it) set of necessary and sufficient conditions, you would have to claim there was a point causally prior to the universes existence in which the necessary and sufficient conditions for the creation of a universe existed, but did not create a universe. Which is logically impossible.
So I suppose the second part of the argument is more like:
p1: Either God or an eternal set of necessary and sufficient conditions
p2: Not an eternal set of necessary and sufficient conditions (for the reasons listed)
C: Therefore God
Originally posted by Bardock42
Problem 1: About Statement 1 we don't know whether that is true, perhaps there are things that begin to exist without a cause, perhaps our cause and effect thinking is too limited outside of our universe.
I think we can logically claim it to be true. If something does not exist and then it does, there is a reason for the change. Unless there is logical reasons to think it isn't true. But the mere possibility of it being false is not a valid refutation.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Problem 2: About Statement 2 we don't know whether that is true either, the Universe may very well be an infinite repetition.
Actually, it is the currently accepted cosmological view that the universe, matter, space, and time came into being at the Big Bang.
Originally posted by Bardock42
So even if there were no other problems with this line of reasoning, you have not proven that the God you worship exists, just that something outside physical-reality exists, and you call it God.
Yes, that's true. This argument isn't specifically for the God of the Bible, but simply for a God in general. More like a refutation for atheism.
Originally posted by Bardock42
So you must understand why this argument is severely lacking and obviously can't convince someone that thinks about it, but you said you had more "proofs" so why not give another one and we can see if that one is logically correct and in line with reality as we know it.
I would prefer to stick to one argument at a time. Otherwise things will get... hectic.
Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Actually, it physically inhibits/affects sexual enjoyment. Shows what you know, eh? You can't even spell it.
So affecting sexual enjoyment is evil now? Again, you have a twisted view of what "evil" is. By your definition, condoms are evil.
Oh, and as dadudeman pointed out, Circumcision is not a necessary part of Christianity anyway.
Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Already did: No one can agree on who he/it is though, hence you non-answering again..
That's because that isn't a relevant part of the discussion. It's not what we're talking about at all.
Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
I've already supported them, 🙂 You're just being obstinate, or just cherry picking what you like from the evidence.
....And you made an empirical statement that the biblical god is God.
Now prove it.
No, I responded to the points you brought up. You, for the most part, ignored my response with the exception of circumcision, which we are talking about now, and terrorist activities, which isn't Christianity related.
Actually, I said there is logical reasons in believing in the existence of God, and I said that Christians are not evil. Both of those points I have been defending this whole time.
Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
'Cause I'm not swayed by your non-arguments at all.
Shame. You come on like you've got the answers, attempting so passionately to decry my argument, yet posts like this are all you put forth, in absence of reasoning.....
Incorrect. For one thing, you haven't even made an argument , so there really isn't any way that I can try to decry it, much less fail at doing so.
Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
"You must be trolling me at this point. I have literally answered this question at least three times now. I will not do so again. Go back through my posts and find it, I didn't hide it or anything."I could say the same to you with unerring confidence of accuracy. 😐
No you couldn't. I haven't ignored any of your posts thus far. You ignored three of mine one right after the other.
Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Your reliance on flaming, is indicative of your troll status and of your frustration in not being able to put convincing points across.
Seen it a million times.
Dont be grumpy. Go out and enjoy the sun. Bask in it's rays:
I haven't relied on flaming at any point in this discussion. In fact, I think I have been pretty polite considering how debates like these usually go on KMC.
If my frustration becomes apparent, it is only because you asked a question that I responded to three times already.
Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
But just dont be telling me that The bible's version of God put it there without any evidence that it exists....for i will have to laugh in your face. 🙁
I have been providing the logical reasons behind thinking God did just that.
Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
(Sorry for the spelling crack, BTW, Tac.... That was poor form by me.)
No worries.
Originally posted by TacDavey
Of you? I'm not sure you want to be proud of that fact at this point... 😬 I am also not sure if I trust the truthfulness of a statement swore on a sandwich (even with mayo). 😆
Nah. It's alright. I don't think you're a bad guy, at all. I swore on the sandwich because we're not supposed to swear to God, our family members, or anything like that. (I'm a dang Mormon. 😄 ) So I figured swearing on a super duper delicious inanimate object wouldn't be a bad thing.
Mayo sandwiches can be proven to exist, I'd take an oath on a Sandwich over one on a very likely imagined character any old day.
😛
But DDM, would you hold your oath to be true, if the Sandwich rotted or was eaten?
Cool Tac..
Yes...Ive had a simliar frustration, at the absolute lack of evidence for the notion of a god (Even just the ones from religious texts) when I see the various horrors committed by people out of blind faith in such a being. It seems the old saying about killing "Let god sort em out" wont ever go away.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Nah. It's alright. I don't think you're a bad guy, at all. I swore on the sandwich because we're not supposed to swear to God, our family members, or anything like that. (I'm a dang Mormon. 😄 ) So I figured swearing on a super duper delicious inanimate object wouldn't be a bad thing.
I can see the logic there. 😂
Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Mayo sandwiches can be proven to exist, I'd take an oath on a Sandwich over one on a very likely imagined character any old day.
😛
lulz
Well, not just any sandwich...a damn good one.
You start the trend: making atheists swear into oath by placing their hand on a delicious sandwich of their choosing.
hmm
Dammit, Jim, I'm a doctor, not an atheistic apologetic!
Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
But DDM, would you hold your oath to be true, if the Sandwich rotted or was eaten?
NAY! This is blaspheme!
Originally posted by dadudemon
lulzWell, not just any sandwich...a damn good one.
You start the trend: making atheists swear into oath by placing their hand on a delicious sandwich of their choosing.
hmm
Dammit, Jim, I'm a doctor, not an atheistic apologetic!
NAY! This is blaspheme!
Yes it must indeed be a tasty sandwich...possibly even...A doughnut.
😛
lol
Speaking of the wisdom of Star Trek:
YouTube video