No, if the foreskin was a "useless" part of the male anatomy which needed to be removed, it would not have been innervated with thousands of densely packed nerve fibres, nor be provided with the blood vessels to nurture it. If the glans dries up and gets desensitivised once the foreskin is removed, thereby reducing sexual pleasure, it implies that the foreskin was present to perform a definite function. This is the basis of my reasoning that no male individual deserves to be forcibly deprived of the sexual pleasure he would have enjoyed - nobody has the right to mutilate his genitalia and remove this sensitive, functional structure of his genitalia, thereby depriving him of something he may never know to enjoy. There is more than ample testimony by normal males who had circumcision performed in adulthood, attesting to the fact that sexual pleasure was more enjoyable when the foreskin was intact and his genitalia preserved from mutilation.
"Do not do unto others what you would not want done unto you."
All you have done is to assert your personal opinion about circumcision. But your personal opinion is not self-evidently true.
* The dense innervation of the foreskin is not myth or personal opinion.
* The rich blood supply network meant for nourishing the foreskin is not myth or personal opinion.
* The fact that an entire industry of foreskin restoration clinics exist to "reverse" circumcision is not myth or personal opinion.
You accuse me of not answering you, yet I have pointed out that unless G-d exists and is the sole arbiter of right and wrong, that no objective law can possibly exist. There are only social constructs which we create and destroy at will. And that's exactly what your beloved "rule of reciprocity" is: a meaningless social construct you just happen to personally approve of. But your personal approvals and disapprovals do not define what is right and what is wrong.
Nonsense. It is as much documented (probably more) that Jesus walked on Earth and was crucified as believed by the Christians, and that he performed miracles as you claim of the "truth" in the Sinai episode, and yet you reject the former as falsehood while accepting the latter as "divine truth". What is your OBJECTIVE STANDARD in allowing you to do so? None. You heard it from other, fallible humans and chose, based on personal, SUBJECTIVE NOTIONS, what you think as "truth" and what you reject as falsehood.
Due to this problem of the subjectiveness of this kind of "truth" due to your derivation of it from fallible, human sources, the faith you have in that "truth" being subject to the condition that you must have faith in those humans who have delivered those "truths" to you (and who have themselves been delivered the same, ignoring corruption, by other humans previously) beforehand, your consideration of what is "truth" is not objective truth.
The Principle of Reciprocity has no such failings, and as such, proves itself to be more objective in its truthfulness, than any of your human-constructed, human-dependent notions of "truth".
The proof of the Truth is the Revelation at Sinai . . . an objective fact of history that could not have possibly been invented at a later date and retrojected. The Revelation at Sinai is the proof by which we judge all that happened before and all that happened after. It sits in judgment on all claims of "revelation." And it isn't based on "blind faith."
LOL, who says that the "revelation" is an objective fact? How do you prove it? Based on other, fallible human testimony? Why, the same exists for Jesus and his miracles as well. How do you reject the "truth of the latter", and then frame your opinion to consider Jesus to be a false god, a false prophet and a preacher of falsehood? You have rejected a similar "objective fact of history" you rejected Jesus' message. How did you do that? Any attempt by you to ignore this section and the questions asked therein will be seen as your inability to answer truthfully.
I was not always a Noachide. I used to be a chr*stian. But I gave up chr*stianity because I learned it was wrong. Let's see you change your life based on your knowledge.
Go ahead, convince me. So far, you've failed to provide objective, indisputable proof for your assertions.
By "fallible humans" do you include yourself and your almighty theory of "reciprocity," or are you alone exempt from fallibility? Maybe you think you are"gxd" and that you created the universe, because that's the only way your personal hang-ups would have any objective validity.
We are all fallible human beings. The rest of your sentences in the excerpt above is mere, useless, aimless projection and I will not spend a hair's worth of trouble to even consider them as serious argument.
The Jewish People had a first-hand experience with G-d Himself. They received the Torah from Him and not any human being, whether he claimed to be a prophet of G-d or (chas vechalilah!) "gxd incarnate." Three million people heard His Voice that day. And they taught their children, and they taught their children, and so on, down until today. There is no other religion in the world based on such a claim. Not one. Nor will there ever be.
Did you have a "first-hand experience" of the nature that those people whose testimony you accepted as "truth", did? If not, you are merely believing their narrative to be "truth" based on your subjective opinion, and not based on first-hand evidence. As such, you need to believe in the words of those people before you can believe in the entity that those people have told you to be the source of those words. Pure, subjective opinion, contingent upon your personal beliefs as to which humans you can believe in, and which humans you cannot. Your faith in Jesus is nil, you reject Jesus as a preacher of falsehood. In doing so, you reject the documented experiences of those people who were present during his time who gave testimony to the fact that they witnessed his deeds - miraculous deeds. On what OBJECTIVE BASIS did you manage to do so? How did you decide that the Sinai chapter was true whereas Jesus' preachings were false, when the knowledge of both has been brought to you by second-hand, fallible, human sources? Answer this, and a failure to do so will be seen as your inability to provide a valid answer.
On what grounds do you dismiss "my truth" as subjective and insist that your own personal hang-ups about circumcision conform to Objective Reality? You're just another fallible human, after all . . . aren't you? Or do you have delusions of gxd-hood?
Why don't you justify your belief in an objective moral reality when you believe the universe is utterly meaningless? Let's see you do that. Any ignoring of this request will be taken as an admission that you cannot.
See earlier responses.
Are you really that uninformed? There is not "trinitarian Judaeo-chr*stian gxd." Judaism rejects the trinity and always has. Chr*stianity is merely one more false religion dreamed up by people. Could it be that you are so naive that you don't even know this? Could it be that you don't know that Judaism doesn't believe in the "trinity" or J*sus? You've been in the Outback too long.
Again, see earlier responses. Thank you!
So? What has that got to do with anything? People are full of nerves throughout their bodies, yet in some circumstances it is G-d's command that they be killed. Why is circumcision any different from the extermination of the Seven Nations of Canaan?
"Do not do unto others what you would not want done unto you."
Why do you keep repeating that mere social construct? Do you think it actually exists in some eternal, metaphysical form outside the universe?
Nonsense. It is as much documented (probably more) that Jesus walked on Earth and was crucified as believed by the Christians, and that he performed miracles as you claim of the "truth" in the Sinai episode, and yet you reject the former as falsehood while accepting the latter as "divine truth". What is your OBJECTIVE STANDARD in allowing you to do so? None. You heard it from other, fallible humans and chose, based on personal, SUBJECTIVE NOTIONS, what you think as "truth" and what you reject as falsehood.
My rejection of chr*stianity is not based on a rejection of the alleged "historical facts" of chr*stianity. None of them literally make any difference. Even if J*sus had been born of a virgin and resurrected after death chr*stianity would still be an unauthorized, false religion because the Torah does not allow for such a development.
Due to this problem of the subjectiveness of this kind of "truth" due to your derivation of it from fallible, human sources, the faith you have in that "truth" being subject to the condition that you must have faith in those humans who have delivered those "truths" to you (and who have themselves been delivered the same, ignoring corruption, by other humans previously) beforehand, your consideration of what is "truth" is not objective truth.
Yet you just declared that circumcision is "evil" even though you are a mere fallible human being. Unless you think you aren't. On what grounds do you accept "do unto others as others would have them do unto you?" The authority of J*sus? Pragmatism? Personal preference? On what grounds do you even believe that anything can be objectively evil at all in the absence of a G-d Who exists outside the universe and Who created and owns it? Why do you persist in your belief in what cannot exist . . . a moral code that transcends the issue of the existence of G-d? You have never explained this.
The Principle of Reciprocity has no such failings, and as such, proves itself to be more objective in its truthfulness, than any of your human-constructed, human-dependent notions of "truth".
The Principle of Reciprocity wasn't created by humans? Where did it come from, then? Do you think the meaningless universe weeps copious tears whenever someone violates this "rule" you pretend exists? Since you insist it was not "human constructed," I'm most interested in learning where you think it comes from.
Go ahead, convince me. So far, you've failed to provide objective, indisputable proof for your assertions.
Why should I? You feel you don't have to convince me of the existence of an objective moral code in a totally meaningless universe. What makes you think I have any more obligation to convince you of my opinions than you do to convince me of yours?
We are all fallible human beings.
Except for you, because the only basis for objective morality appears to be your own hang-ups and opinions.
Did you have a "first-hand experience" of the nature that those people whose testimony you accepted as "truth", did? If not, you are merely believing their narrative to be "truth" based on your subjective opinion, and not based on first-hand evidence. As such, you need to believe in the words of those people before you can believe in the entity that those people have told you to be the source of those words. Pure, subjective opinion, contingent upon your personal beliefs as to which humans you can believe in, and which humans you cannot. Your faith in Jesus is nil, you reject Jesus as a preacher of falsehood. In doing so, you reject the documented experiences of those people who were present during his time who gave testimony to the fact that they witnessed his deeds - miraculous deeds. On what OBJECTIVE BASIS did you manage to do so? How did you decide that the Sinai chapter was true whereas Jesus' preachings were false, when the knowledge of both has been brought to you by second-hand, fallible, human sources? Answer this, and a failure to do so will be seen as your inability to provide a valid answer.
Okay, I'm confused now. Are you an atheist, or an anti-Semitic chr*stian?
I fail to understand why the "eye-witnesses of J*sus" are less fallible or subjective than the eye-witnesses of Sinai. Do you think chr*stian religious authorities are any less subjective and fallible than the Sages of Israel? That's strange, because even chr*stianity admits the Revelation at Sinai. If they were wrong about that, why should they be right about anything else? Why are eyewitness accounts of J*sus any more reliable than eye-witness accounts of Sinai? You write a great deal about subjectivism and opinion, but you then act as if chr*stian authorities are magically exempted from this otherwise universal subjectivism.
On what OBJECTIVE BASIS (as you put it) do you put the "principle of reciprocity" or the truth of chr*stianity? You weren't there, were you? You just claimed I couldn't know the Torah is true because I wasn't there. Are you a reincarnated apostle of some kind?
Why don't you justify your belief in an objective moral reality when you believe the universe is utterly meaningless? Let's see you do that. Any ignoring of this request will be taken as an admission that you cannot.
See earlier responses.
Your earlier responses do not address the issue at all. They assert that my own beliefs are subjective but they don't say a word of why your beliefs are any more "objective" than are mine. Since you refuse to do this, I assume you admit that you cannot.
Thank you.