Posted on 05/12/2010 6:32:25 PM PDT by Maggie Maggie Maggie
No, nothing that could possibly qualify as a “nick” would cause any harm at all — it’s not removing anything, or even making a cut large enough to produce any detectable scar tissue. And that’s what makes it comparable to circumcision, or any other *harmless* religious or cultural practice. Sodomizing kids or making them play with rattlesnakes is obviously not harmless.
As I said, I don’t think the proposal makes much sense as a way to change a cultural tradition (and it is cultural not religious — it’s even commonly practiced by Christians in the countries where it’s prevalent). People who are not interested in disabling their daughters’ sexual function have already abandoned the key feature of the tradition, are unlikely to be interested in any “ritual nicks”. There might be a handful of people who would do it as a way to partially appease backward-minded grandparents or something, but otherwise it’s dead in the water.
I am not a proponent of settee, but who is the “we” that does not permit it? What standard does the “we? use to decide whether or not settee should be permitted? If the people involved practiced settee by their own free will, do they not have a right to exercise their religious beliefs? Is the freedom of a religion a right or a privilege? Unless such questions as these can be answered, then have nothing more than subjective personal opinion.
I second that ‘exactly’
First off.
1. Who is the we? Everyone from Sikhs to Muslims to Christians all forbid the practice.
2. This is a good question. The standard used is that in practice it was not voluntary, and two, voluntary presumes that the person is in a correct state of mind.
It’s like the argument against suicide. We do not permit suicide in this culture even if some kill themselves anyways.
3. Religious freedoms are not absolute. Child sacrifice isn’t permitted, even though some religions participate in them. It’s a question of what is the higher value, doing what is right, or allowing everyone to do as they wish.
4. Freedom of religion is a right.
4.
Christianity is based upon human sacrifice. If Christians condemn human sacrifice on moral grounds, it is condemning not only itself as an immoral religion, but it is also condemning God of immorality. Not only did the Father offer up his Son has a sacrifice for the sins of the world, but he also commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son, Isaac. It is rather strange to praise Jesus as the sacrificial lamb of God, and then condemn another religion for practicing human sacrifices.
For either Muslims, Jews, or Christians to condemn religious sacrifices is hypocritical. I know little or nothing about Sikhs.
It is easy to believe that someone is not in his correct state of mind whenever he does something with which we disagree or do not understand. It is too easy to assume that conventionally accepted behavior is the only norm by which we determine what is acceptable religious practices. I could very easily see society condemning infant circumcision as child abuse. Just as I could see some counties in the deep South forbidding the use of wine for communion. If Christianity had practiced infant sacrifice throughout her history until today, it would be considered an acceptable religious practice and protected by law. The primary reason that certain religious practices are permitted and others condemned is a matter of cultural or conventional taste.
You obviously understand nothing about Christianity.
Awful analysis. Christianity is in no wise based upon ‘human sacrifice.’ One perfect God-man gave His life one time, for all sins of His own. That is not the repetitive act your comments connote.
Was Jesus human? Was he not a human sacrifice for sin? Did not Paul preach Jesus Christ and him crucified? If the truth offends you, I cannot help it. Christianity is based upon a human sacrifice, and his name is Jesus. Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins. If you were you reread my comments, you would see very clearly that I never said that Christianity practiced repetitive human sacrifices. If, however, it did, it would most likely become a legally protected religious practice. I do not mind having people point out any logical errors, but I really do wish that you would actually read what I wrote.
“Christianity is based upon human sacrifice.”
Interesting argument. So you approve of Suttee? You approve of child sacrifice? You believe that people ought to be able to kill their children because they believe their religion tells them too?
That is the consequence of your philosophy that freedom of religion is absolute. It is not. None of our freedoms are absolute, not liberty, not even life. We do not have the right to kill others and expect for our right to life to remain. We are not permitted to exercise our liberty such that to constrain others. One person’s rights end where another persons’ right begins. This is an essential principle.
Actions contrary to the Natural Law do not support our rights, they work against them. Approving child sacrifice teaches us that human life is not valuable. It is not sacred in anyway shape or form.
Sacrificing children to Molech is explicitly condemned throughout the OT. It was a practice very common among Pagans. Christians too, condemned child sacrifice and we have freed people from the grips of religions that thought no better than to kill their own people.
As for Abraham, did he not say, “God himself will provide for us a lamb?” And did not God do that very thing? Did that passage in Genesis show that God blessed Abraham for actually willing to sacrifice his son, or did it show that God will provide?
As for Christ, and his atonement, are Christians to emulate Christ by sacrificing their children? Or do we believe that Christ was the perfect sacrifice, the passover lamb without blemish?
Christ offered himself, and he rose from the dead so that we do not have to offer ourselves for anything. Christ is the perfect sacrifice. Human sacrifice denies the atonement, and denies that Christ was God and Man. We cannot match his sacrifice because our children are not both God and Man, therefore we must not sacrifice our children, but instead, accept Christ.
“It is easy to believe that someone is not in his correct state of mind whenever he does something with which we disagree or do not understand.”
So when you see someone trying to kill themselves, your impulse is to ignore them and let them die? Or do you believe that they are not in their right mind and try to help them?
“If Christianity had practiced infant sacrifice throughout her history until today, it would be considered an acceptable religious practice and protected by law.”
So you do not believe that Christianity is founded on fundamental truths which are applicable to everyone. Why didn’t Christianity approve of child sacrifice? Why did they attempt to get rid of it wherever they have seen it?
This is because Christians saw child sacrifice as contrary to the Natural Law. This is the distinction that we must draw between religious practices which do permit freedoms, and those that do not. In another example, offering yourself as a martyr to save the lives of others is lawful, whereas killing yourself to kill other people is not.
Once you step outside the natural law, you have lost what freedoms you ever had.
“If, however, it did, it would most likely become a legally protected religious practice.”
Christianity isn’t a command religion where everything is right because it is commanded by God or practiced by those who call themselves believers. If this were so, there would be no teachings held by the Church. Christianity upholds the natural law, the law written on our hearts. Christianity is what it is because of what the natural law teaches, not in spite of it.
Yes, God commanded Isaac to do this. However, did God permit Isaac to kill his son? No. This is important. God did not permit Isaac to kill his son.
As for Christ, Christ volunteered to serve as the passover lamb. God did not sacrifice Christ, the Romans sacrificed him through crucifixion. However, unlike the rest of us, Christ, being God, returned from the dead.
If you find your characterization wise, stay with it.
Personally speaking; I’m not missing the extra skin, and since I have no recollection of the procedure, I’ve not been traumatized by it.
Christ was sent by the Father to die for the sins of the world. If you recall the account of Abraham and Isaac, you will notice that it was God that provided the sacrifice, which is fulfilled in Christ. He is the sacrifice provided by God. Jesus said that he came to do his Father's will, not his own. He even asked his Father to spare him from the Cross. It was the Father's will that Jesus die for the sins of the world. God may have used human beings to carry out the sacrifice, but it was from beginning to end the will of Father. He is the Lamb of God, God's sacrifice.
Btw, the Romans did not sacrifice Jesus, they punished him by crucifixion. If you execute a criminal, you do not sacrifice him, you punish him.
All people will rise from the dead on the Last Day. Jesus is the first fruits of the resurrection.
“So let me understand this. God commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son, but God was only joking. Abraham must have gotten a good laugh. God is such a joker.”
He was testing Abraham, to see whether Abraham would follow what YWHW was asking him to do even if he didn’t understand.
You are right that it was the Father’s will, but Christ volunteered. He chose to suffer and die for us.
“Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels?”
Matthew 26:53.
So there’s a new version of female cirumcision, a “compromise nick”?
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.