Posted on 01/28/2006 7:21:40 PM PST by chet_in_ny
My wife would disagree on that point. I'm not in favor of mutilation, but I had no choice in the matter for myself.
To say that it reduces one to the same as a mechanical device is overstating the case.
Or the one about the pay not being that great, they mostly work for tips.
***groan ***
No. They didn't know about hemophilia. It is a sad thing and nothing to make fun of. Incidentally, I've never heard of hemophilia in modern times among Jews. That is not to say that it does not occur. Now just because I read it, some time ago, doesn't make it so.
If it did happen, it brings up interesting questions. It is passed on by the female. It had to start at some point with one female. In biblical times, Jews were to marry within their own tribes. There were sometimes dire consequences when they flouted the law. It is conceivable that, in those times, the defective gene had not yet been introduced into the Jewish gene pool.
Brilliantly insightful comments like yours and this thread lead me to say goodnight FR.
sheesh.
Remember Muslims circumcize at 13. I would worry more about the imams.
It might explain a few other things about Muzzie "culture".
Oh, yes; my father worked in Saudi & Kuwait in the 1950s. I have his 35mm slides packed away, a few of which show young Bedouin boys with rocks tied to their penis, to stretch it.
Yes, the young boys, say up to 6 or 7 years old, were typically naked, but not the girls.
lol Woah slow down cowboy. It was a joke but it is true that many of the molesters were being covered for by branches of the church as are many homosexuals. That wasn't a major problem but it was a problem all the same. Pope Benedictine is making many good changes and I am impressed with his outspokeness and his edicts. I will admit that my first exposure to a Catholic Priest was one who used to share illegal drugs with a buddy of mine but I never would generalize that to all Catholic leadership. The MSM doesn't convince me of anything and taking a joke as indicating something of value about what someone believes is reading more into something than is really there.
Even though it is no longer required for religious reasons among Christians, it is the same God who ordered it.
And this is the same God who ordered that Jews not slash themselves while in mourning as the heathen did.
I don't know if it is true that sexual pleasure is reduced for the woman though. Just because people say it is doesn't make it so. That would mean for centuries Jewish and Arab women derived less pleasure from sex.
That was interesting what you posted. I had never read anything like that. Just because you say it doesn't make it true. Where did you read it? I'm suspicious of historians because they often did not agree and don't know which ones are credible.
Interesting. My boys were circumsized young but I don't think I'd want something like that to happen outside a hospital let alone letting anyone kiss their jollyroger.
Yeah, it's hard for me to put much stock in such a "study".
Did they circumsize Joe after marriage, and ask Jane "before" and "after" questions?
Or did they ask Jane about the difference between Joe and Fred?
Either way, it hardly seems like a valid comparison.
I take it you don't have an answer, either.
You can read about it all over the internet, but I assume you will find the Jewish Encyclopedia most credible of all:
In order to prevent the obliteration of the "seal of the covenant" on the flesh, as circumcision was henceforth called, the Rabbis, probably after the war of Bar Kokba (see Yeb. l.c.; Gen. R. xlvi.), instituted the "peri'ah" (the laying bare of the glans), without which circumcision was declared to be of no value (Shab. xxx. 6).
The "peri'ah" is the radical circumcision as we know it today, as opposed to just snipping the tip which was the custom prior to the Bar Kokhba revolt (132-135 AD).
I would tend to find that credible. Because of the conflicts between the two religions, some of their later writings I would not, as some writings in my chosen religion are not credible, to me anyway.
To my knowledge, it is not a topic of the slightest dispute. It's well-known among scholars/students of the era that that's when "peri'ah" (radical circumcision) was instituted by the Jews.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who questions it. It's probably closer to the truth to say they don't really know, but everybody has an agenda and pulls out various statements and studies to support their stance.
It's very, very low on my priority list of things to worry about, like on the negative side of the scale.
OK, if you say so. If it had been a matter of greater concern, I would have dug that out myself over the years.
I don't see where Izzy said that, but I have been wondering about the exact same thing for some time now.
So far as concern and priorities, the only thing that matters is that it be of enough concern to you that you're here discussing the topic. And since it is of at least that much concern to you, now you know.
I understand your uncertainty. But if it happened as you suggested, then it obviously happened enough times that the powers (whoever granted the "reprieve") noticed the connection.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.