Israel... what do you think?

[[KMA]Avenger]

i only posted it because the modern historical record tells us circumcision (a nasty pagan and barbaric act btw!) came about as a result of Gods covenant with Abraham. its not meant to prove anything. as i've said, i'm simply posting what i find, but the conclusion is self evident, as you prove with your last post.

[jedi~tank]

Circumcision was instituted for the specific purpose to identify the chose from the non.

[Kit-Fox]

Circumcision was instituted for the specific purpose to identify the chose from the non.

So how do you explain how the practise evolved in several places at similar times, all of which had areas of dry/arid land where dust/sand & dirt could be lifted and carried in the air allowing it to be trapped under the foreskin.

How do explain that it evolved between different peoples/religions/races/socities?

Its quite obvious to anyone without blinkers on that the practise was created for what would be considered 'medical' reasons. religion had nothing to do with its initial/original creation.

[jedi~tank]

Circumcision was instituted for the specific purpose to identify the chose from the non.

So how do you explain how the practise evolved in several places at similar times, all of which had areas of dry/arid land where dust/sand & dirt could be lifted and carried in the air allowing it to be trapped under the foreskin.

How do explain that it evolved between different peoples/religions/races/socities?

Its quite obvious to anyone without blinkers on that the practise was created for what would be considered 'medical' reasons. religion had nothing to do with its initial/original creation.

I would swap the word evolve to "copy". Explanation..its what people do especially those that are favored or have it "going on" people tend to copy those people. And who said anything about religion?

[Kit-Fox]

Circumcision was instituted for the specific purpose to identify the chose from the non.

So how do you explain how the practise evolved in several places at similar times, all of which had areas of dry/arid land where dust/sand & dirt could be lifted and carried in the air allowing it to be trapped under the foreskin.

How do explain that it evolved between different peoples/religions/races/socities?

Its quite obvious to anyone without blinkers on that the practise was created for what would be considered 'medical' reasons. religion had nothing to do with its initial/original creation.

I would swap the word evolve to "copy". Explanation..its what people do especially those that are favored or have it "going on" people tend to copy those people. And who said anything about religion?

First you mentioned religion when you said that circumcision was instituted to identity the chosen from the non-chosen. Only in religion can you have so called 'chosen' people.

And you can can go on believing it was copied from the jewish people, but those of us who are smart enough to not deny the evidence right in front us will know better

I should like to poke a hole in your theory of copying however before finishing. That is that you are trying to tell me that at a time in human history when travelling vast distances was immensely difficult & dangerous, so much so that people of the time (even rich people) barely travelled more than 50miles from their birth place that the practise was copied across several continents????

EDIT:

How can you keep religion out of it, you have said & I've quoted it further up so no point in editing it out now that 'circumcision was instituted to identify the chosen from the non' (I assume the missing word here would be '-chosen' as in non-chosen)

Now you are clearly referring to a religious identification.

However as I have already said & indeed KMA has illustrated the practise existed before the Jews adopted it & indeed it was created in response to the environment humankind found itself living in at certain places around the world. IE that it wasnt created in response to the word of god or to identify anyone at all, more that it was a method of protecting the means of self-replication.

[jedi~tank]

Circumcision was instituted for the specific purpose to identify the chose from the non.

So how do you explain how the practise evolved in several places at similar times, all of which had areas of dry/arid land where dust/sand & dirt could be lifted and carried in the air allowing it to be trapped under the foreskin.

How do explain that it evolved between different peoples/religions/races/socities?

Its quite obvious to anyone without blinkers on that the practise was created for what would be considered 'medical' reasons. religion had nothing to do with its initial/original creation.

I would swap the word evolve to "copy". Explanation..its what people do especially those that are favored or have it "going on" people tend to copy those people. And who said anything about religion?

First you mentioned religion when you said that circumcision was instituted to identity the chosen from the non-chosen. Only in religion can you have so called 'chosen' people.

And you can can go on believing it was copied from the jewish people, but those of us who are smart enough to not deny the evidence right in front us will know better

I should like to poke a hole in your theory of copying however before finishing. That is that you are trying to tell me that at a time in human history when travelling vast distances was immensely difficult & dangerous, so much so that people of the time (even rich people) barely travelled more than 50miles from their birth place that the practise was copied across several continents????

M8 dont get all uptight, I havent posted any comment based on religion..it happens to be historical facts, and do you realize that anti-religion is a religion? That appears to be the stance you have. Lets keep religion out of it and deal with facts shall we.

[[KMA]Avenger]

Circumcision was instituted for the specific purpose to identify the chose from the non.

I havent posted any comment based on religion..it happens to be historical facts, and do you realize that anti-religion is a religion? That appears to be the stance you have. Lets keep religion out of it and deal with facts shall we.

you cant have "chosen" and "non-chosen" people without involving religion mate, as KF rightly pointed out, its you that's involved religion in the discussion regarding circumcision...albeit indirectly.

M8 dont get all uptight,

i think you have mistaken KF's position as being "uptight" (as you put it), but in all likelihood is a position of frustration




and just for the record, i only brought up circumcision just to highlight a point that Hebrew people got the practice of circumcision from the Egyptians.
further, it also demonstrates that the Hebrew people did indeed integrate into Egyptian society and observe their customs and traditions. i was not trying to make it the be all and end all of an argument, nor am i trying to make it a pivotal point in this discussion/thread.




edit2, on a side note with regards to religion:

the Hebrews were originally heinotheistic NOT monotheistic, that means, they chose 1 God over the rest, which is why after "they" had chosen their God from a whole pantheon of Gods-"God" made it a commandment to have no other God/s before him.

[jedi~tank]

Circumcision was instituted for the specific purpose to identify the chose from the non.

I havent posted any comment based on religion..it happens to be historical facts, and do you realize that anti-religion is a religion? That appears to be the stance you have. Lets keep religion out of it and deal with facts shall we.

you cant have "chosen" and "non-chosen" people without involving religion mate, as KF rightly pointed out, its you that's involved religion in the discussion regarding circumcision...albeit indirectly.

M8 dont get all uptight,

i think you have mistaken KF's position as being "uptight" (as you put it), but in all likelihood is a position of frustration




and just for the record, i only brought up circumcision just to highlight a point that Hebrew people got the practice of circumcision from the Egyptians.
further, it also demonstrates that the Hebrew people did indeed integrate into Egyptian society and observe their customs and traditions. i was not trying to make it the be all and end all of an argument, nor am i trying to make it a pivotal point in this discussion/thread.




edit2, on a side note with regards to religion:

the Hebrews were originally heinotheistic NOT monotheistic, that means, they chose 1 God over the rest, which is why after "they" had chosen their God from a whole pantheon of Gods-"God" made it a commandment to have no other God/s before him.

Incorrect, while they were "intergrated" by virtue of being slaves for 400 years the practice did not come from the egyptians.


highlight #2..THEY were chosen, they did not CHOOSE..big difference there m8.

[[KMA]Avenger]

ok, i can see this is going to be a point of contention BUT, i intend to contest it nonetheless

read my above post (which archaeologists have prove to be true) with regard to the Hixos Kings of Egypt.

they were not slaves, no evidence has been found by archaeologists to reconcile Hebrew slavery in Egypt and the Hebrew Exodus from Egyptian bondage, or the founding of the nation of Israel as described in the bible. what was found as i've already pointed out, is the integration of Hebrews into Egyptian culture, much like today's UK and US practice (as well as other nations) of accepting foreigners into our nations, so were the Hebrews accepted into Egypt because they were skilled workers and craftsman.
this has been proven by archaeology. what's also been prove is that the Hebrews over the course of time progressed up the social ladder until they became Pharaohs themselves, and were eventually driven out.

for those that have seen the Hollywood film The Ten Commandments with Charlton Heston, its nothing more than a fairy tale.

are we still on topic?

[Kit-Fox]

Oh and as you are so keen and saying how your mearly stating 'Historical Fact' JT (especially funny when you consider there is no such thing, but thats another discussion entirely) You might consider checking out the archeological records/evidence that can clearly show the existance of the practise before the Jewish people & faith arrived on the scene.

[Mordack]

I missed your point. The account in the Torah (1st 5 books of the bible) as well as the entire old testament, science and archeology have proven it already. Wether one chooses to believ it or not is personal preference but personal preference does not change the facts. The original title holder to the land is God almighty, he gave it to the hebrews..later Abraham has a son named Ishmael, and another named Isaac. The one son he promised and thusly gave land a, the other he promised and thusly gave land b..both sons recieved thier portion of what God alloted to them..but the stckler is this..one son was given the blessing of God while the other was not..why? ask God..so herein lies the CONFLICT..the sons of Ismael and the sons of Isaac..it has not to do with the LAND that is Israel..it has to do with to whom the blessing of God was given..now for non spiritual people and for those that do not believ in such a thing..ask yourself this question..how can a people thrive so in a country barley the size of Virginia surrounded by so many that would see them exterminated? Blessing or not, you investigate on your own, I have and am satisfied that I cannot explain it nor fully comprehend it but I believ it thus and so.

The point I made is that your belief that the Jews are the rightful heirs to the land is rooted in faith. Nothing anybody says is likely to change your mind. The same is true of the Palestinians, who have an equally resolute and unflinching belief that the land belongs to them. That's why there won't be a resolution.

[Hitchkok]

I missed your point. The account in the Torah (1st 5 books of the bible) as well as the entire old testament, science and archeology have proven it already. Wether one chooses to believ it or not is personal preference but personal preference does not change the facts. The original title holder to the land is God almighty, he gave it to the hebrews..later Abraham has a son named Ishmael, and another named Isaac. The one son he promised and thusly gave land a, the other he promised and thusly gave land b..both sons recieved thier portion of what God alloted to them..but the stckler is this..one son was given the blessing of God while the other was not..why? ask God..so herein lies the CONFLICT..the sons of Ismael and the sons of Isaac..it has not to do with the LAND that is Israel..it has to do with to whom the blessing of God was given..now for non spiritual people and for those that do not believ in such a thing..ask yourself this question..how can a people thrive so in a country barley the size of Virginia surrounded by so many that would see them exterminated? Blessing or not, you investigate on your own, I have and am satisfied that I cannot explain it nor fully comprehend it but I believ it thus and so.

The point I made is that your belief that the Jews are the rightful heirs to the land is rooted in faith. Nothing anybody says is likely to change your mind. The same is true of the Palestinians, who have an equally resolute and unflinching belief that the land belongs to them. That's why there won't be a resolution.

EXCEPT: the palestinian claim is not based on scriptures. how do i know that?
1) the Palestinian are not a homogenous religious group. there are muslim Palestinian and christian Palestinian.
2) the Palestinain claim is for the mandatory Palestine.
3) neither the quran nor the bible has any reference to the mandatory Palestine.

this is not to say that the old testament is claim enough for a Jewish state in Israel. but it does negate the Palestinian religious claim.
the Palestinian national movement is a secular one.

[Kit-Fox]

And Israels claim is based on the fact that they murdered & commited genocide to clear the land of its original inhabitants. Seriously, its in your own religious books that

God promised?? If he promised why did he require you to kill (which is against his word) to claim the land.

Also to JT, Israel survives even surrounded by those who dont like/appreciate it because it is backed both economically & militarily by the US. Without this backing Israel would not survive in a conflict with its neighbours.

[Hitchkok]

And Israels claim is based on the fact that they murdered & commited genocide to clear the land of its original inhabitants. Seriously, its in your own religious books that

God promised?? If he promised why did he require you to kill (which is against his word) to claim the land.

having said that, Israel is a secular state. it is a democracy, not a theocracy. it was founded (mainly) by secular organisations. Zionism is a national movement, not a religious one. I my self eat unkosher food, do not observe the Shabbath, and consider my self an atheist (although my father's family (which live in Israel) Is orthodox). I am part of the Jewish people, but not the Jewish religion.
the halacha view on the state of Israel is i-material as long as there is a large secular majority in Israel.

2ND page of this discussion.

Israel's claim is based on the right of self definition.

[Kit-Fox]

No its not based on

the right of self definition

thats just the most modern base for your claim, it is not the original nor is it the only its just the most recent.

I feel that I should give you fair warning that at least some of my information comes from a persons writings/musings/comments who is jewish himself whose family name is Cohen He is himself a rather prominent biologist.