LOL, and there you have it.
You reject the historicity of Jesus, the documentation of his life and acts, the testimony of his witnesses, and also mention that even all that he did was true, whereas you accept the Sinai story. Now, what exactly did you have as an authoritative standard to accept one claim and reject the other? You have yet to provide me with a specific answer to this. After all, your source for both stories are other human beings. How did you reject one and accept the other? What objective standard did you use to make a judgment? As for the rest of the post, they are already addressed in prior comments. Your failure to recognise the fact that you are using subjective opinions to reject one narrative (people's testimony of Jesus) and accept another (people's testimony of Moses) because you failed to provide the objective standard you used to measure up either narrative, is why I am forced to ask you again for the same. Do that first.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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?
Your god is not my god. I strongly suspect the truth of your claims until you can prove to me how you chose one narrative of "objective truth" over another, as illustrated in the section above.
Until that is done, the general condition between you, me and everyone else is that we are going to be in perpetual disagreement about whose god is the right one and whose isn't. In that environment, you are incapable of forcing your subjectively chosen narrative of your faith onto the rest, since you will face an opposition. So as to ensure that civil discourse prevails in resolving this situation, we are now left with finding mutually-agreeable terms and conditions to proceed with our day-to-day intercourse - the most prominent one being the rule that one not do unto others what one would not want done unto themselves. If you fail to recognise the necessity of this rule in ensuring that violence does not dominate, then anyone is free to impose their personal, subjective opinions of "absolute truth" onto you as well, and that can even go to the extent of violating your mental and physical being. Since we all have an interest in preventing this circumstance from arising, we are forced to go back to the Golden Rule ("Do not do unto others...").
That is, until you can prove that your subjectively-chosen beliefs are true objective truths, with special emphasis on how you accepted human testimony of the same (forcing you to accept the fidelity of the humans who told you the narrative, as a precondition prior to your faith in the claimed truths), the above situation prevails, if mutual violence has to be kept at bay.
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.
Answered in the section above.
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.
Without the Principle of Reciprocity arising among humans, men could not have co-operated with fellow men. Due to the reliance and inter-dependence of the human species on one-another for sustained survival, without the Principle of Reciprocity being applicable, humans would have either gone extinct, or not survived to the point where we are having this conversation. This fact alone substantiates the universal truthfulness of the Principle of Reciprocity, since the same operating principle is valid in every human society. If you go further, the same principle applies in the social co-operation among entities in the animal kingdom, as well. If the principle could arise in a non-human population, it goes without saying that the principle is not dependent on humans for affirmation. In fact, it again proves the universality of the principle.
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?
Already addressed. See earlier responses.
Except for you, because the only basis for objective morality appears to be your own hang-ups and opinions.
Your words, not mine. As for the rest, they have been addressed earlier. See again.
Okay, I'm confused now. Are you an atheist, or an anti-Semitic chr*stian?
Neither. Consider that I am a Deist, and then proceed in answering my arguments.
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.
You fail to do so, do you? Really?
Well, try again. You accepted the Sinai narrative, even though your source for that narrative is second-hand sources such as human word-of-mouth and paper. You rejected the Jesus narrative, even though the source for the same is qualitatively no different from the other narrative. How did you manage to conduct the examination of either narrative, for their truthfulness and for their respective falsehoods? You were presented with both, and you chose one and rejected the other. How did you do so? Explain the OBJECTIVE STANDARDS used, and ensure that your choice was not dependent on SUBJECTIVE OPINIONS.
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.
I have addressed why the Principle of Reciprocity is a universal truth. If you fail to understand the same, it is not my problem. Try again, it has been explained in this response as well.
Oh, and one more thing. Ensure that you have fully and completely responded to the first portion of this post, so that we don't end up going back-and-forth with lengthy exchanges.
Thank you.
If the Jewish community were attempting to force mandatory circumcision then your argument would be valid, but that is not the case. The government is forcing religious communities to abandon what is commanded by God. No government can change what God has commanded.