"God" tells man to "be fruitful and multiply." Then why does he instruct Abraham to murder one of his offspring, relenting only when the patriarch shows his willingness to actually do it, then insisting that all good Jews show their reverence through a "covenant": removal of the prepuce from the membrum virilis? Almost all of the male's sensitivity (and therefore his enjoyment of sexual congress) is located in the underside of the head of the phallus, and the purpose of the foreskin is to protect that sensitivity.

I haven't seen statistics, but I would be willing to bet that males with foreskins enjoy sex better, and certainly enjoy it longer, than men without. In fact, I am willing to wager that ninety-nine percent of all premature ejaculation occurs in men who are "cut" because the exposed head is constantly stimulated in such diurnal exercises as walking. (Cotton underwear is the worst!) It would seem to me that if "God" really wanted man to be fruitful and multiply, "He" would have let us keep our foreskins, the better to enjoy sex...unless, of course, he only wanted us to get on, go, and get off.

One more instance of "His" arbitrary, capricious, and downright cruel pronouncements, actually not the demands of some supernatural authority, but the deranged rantings of grumpy desert warlords of the 6th century b.c.e.

Views: 36

Attachments:

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

According to the Bible, God doesn't have good memory. Even after the shit was written down, he forgets his own rules.
Now, now, Alex, God said do as I say, not as I do. I think that's where my parents got that.
Attachments:
God is a bad supernatural parental figure at best. He should know, as a deity himself, that he should be more responsible.

But according to him my thoughts are null and void since I'm an object.
No, no, Jennifer, "God" loves you. You are not an object to "God," you are a loved human being. On TV this a.m., some hick cowboy shitkicker apologized for not coming forward sooner to claim the $223 MILLION super lotto and thanked "God" for sending the money his way. Just another example of post hoc reasoning: I went to church, I prayed, I honored the Commandments, &c., and so "God" made me the winner.
But of course, Amer! Look at the Crystal Cathedral in California...or, for that matter, the entire ministry of the Crouch family, also in California, or the Robbertson bunch or the Falwells. None of these people know what true spirituality is, they simply ply their trade as "religion." The whole of a "Prosperity Gospel" flies in the face of all religions' prophets' admonishments to be charitable, to give away one's wealth to those who suffer in poverty, misery, destitution. If they gave their money away without self-aggrandizement, the rich you mention might be seen as altruistic, but most simply want to make sure they go to "Heaven" or the Muslim Paradise. Their giving is not half so righteous as that of the secular humanist, who gives because it is the right thing to do.
Additionally, biblegod broke every single one of his own Ten Commandments.

Thank you! I use this to argue when Christians tell me God cannot stand to be in the presence of sin, and that's why he must send people to hell. Apparently, though, it's not a sin if God does it, it's "justice."
I think you are being simplistic. I do not have to understand nuclear physics in order to know that the bomb in the hands of bin Laden or Kim Jung Il is a dangerous thing. I do not need to read Bart Ehrman or any other scripture scholar, because I am unconcerned with what the original Hebrew or Koine says, but with the interpretation of what it says by modern fundamentalist types, especially the evangelicals. Also, I have read many books, most recently Solomon Schimmel's on fundamentalism that incorporate the original Hebrew and Koine in their observations. Wading through the "vast corpus of scholarly work" about nonsense does not make any stronger arguments for ignoring it.
It is almost axiomatic that many atheists know their Booble better than some preachers and many congregationalists. One must familiarize oneself thoroughly in an absurdity to recognize it as such.
Thanks for posting about genital mutilation, but the foreskin is pleasure-receptive in its own right, and not just a protective cover. Put another way, it's not the wrapper, it is the candy. It includes about half a male's pleasure receptive nerve endings and is comprised of about 15 square inches of exquisite sensual interface.

The male foreskin is every bit as vital to a male's full sexual experience as the clitoral hood and labia minora are to a female's. In fact they are the SAME tissue until three months' gestation. Foreskin feels REALLY good. HIS body, HIS decision. (And I'm capitalizing the OWNER of the penis, not some diety).
I stand corrected. I probably read that somewhere but simply forgot it. Males with foreskins are gods to us lesser mortals.
His body NOT his decision, because the decision should not exist because circumcision should not exist. There should be no such thing as being given the choice of getting circumcised. Adult circumcision should not be legal either.

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

 

Latest Activity

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service