German court rules circumcision is 'bodily harm'

estebanrey said:
<snip>
Click to expand...

You might want to actually understand the contextual and theological use of the terminology you are throwing about.

The Pentateuch is a shared scripture in Abrahamic religious Canon, however the Hebrew Bible and The Bible are not the same.

When refering to Judaism Canon we would commonly use the term Hebrew Bible or The Tanakh, if we use the term The Bible, it refers to the Christian Canon.


And you certainly implied that Catholicism was separate from Christianity.
 
Last edited:
RDM said:
No, both parents play a role in that. Maybe you are too young to have all the details....

Regardless that does not give them ownership of the child. You do not own a child, you cannot do whatever you wish with a child just because it is yours.
Click to expand...

We have already learnt it in school
 
estebanrey said:
I've never claimed anything to the contrary.

All I've said is the Bible isn't exclusive to Christianity which was originally claimed.
Click to expand...

Only the Pentaturch, nothing more. The Pentateuch is not the Hebrew Bible in any case, neither is it a Bible in the truest sense, it is in Judaism, The Torah, which means The Law.

The term bible simply means books and can refer to any number of holy or secular texts, but the term The Bible is exclusively used in reference to Christianity, The Tanakh is refered to as The Hebrew Bible. The Old Testament is not the same as the Torah and in neither religion are the books of the Pentateuch/Torah referred to as The Bible, that definition is reserved for the larger Canonical texts.(I won't go into the Septuagint and so on, it would only confuse you further) In any case T345 was obviously referring to the Christian Bible and not the Torah, so RDM was correct and the argument is moot before it began.

So cool down and accept you were mistaken, both about this and the fact that Catholics are Christians.
 
Last edited:
This is also done for religious reasons:


To a non-religious person, there's not a massive difference between that and circumcising a baby unnecessarily. I hope you don't think that that's acceptable too.
 
zenf1 said:
This is also done for religious reasons:


To a non-religious person, there's not a massive difference between that and circumcising a baby unnecessarily. I hope you don't think that that's acceptable too.
Click to expand...

WTF, circumsism cannot result in death
 
Last edited:
T345 said:
WTF, circumsism cannot result in death
Click to expand...

Any form of surgery carries with it inherent risk. There are many, many things that can go wrong. The younger the patient, the more can go wrong and the less chance of survival (beyond being very old of course).
 
I'm not sure whether it has already been asked in this thread, or whether it's even relevant, but is there anyone on these forums who has been circumcised but is also against it?
 
toshj said:
I'm not sure whether it has already been asked in this thread, or whether it's even relevant, but is there anyone on these forums who has been circumcised but is also against it?
Click to expand...

Well I suppose I am.

Circumcised as an adult for medical reasons and I don't really agree with chopping bits of babies without their consent (medical reasons excluded of course) and as an Atheist as well I'm not really supportive of doing stuff because your magic book commands you to either.

However, on a purely selfish level I'm glad it is so widespread as it is otherwise I could be seen as 'abnormal' by girls if they weren't as used to it as they are because of the religious practice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom