| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| « May | Jul » | |||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | |
| 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 |
| 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 |
| 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 |
| 28 | 29 | 30 | ||||
- Blogroll (2)
- communication (74)
- easter (3)
- education (43)
- emotion (84)
- hearing (56)
- humor (35)
- interpretation (76)
- listen (52)
- prophet (4)
- religion (110)
- signs (19)
- stroke (40)
- technology (5)
- Uncategorized (20)
- wild guesses (68)
- 8. March 2010: THE STATE OF HEALTH CARE
- 5. March 2010: WORSHIP LEADER IS A PERVERT
- 4. March 2010: Testing a New Blog Editor
- 24. February 2010: NOT QUITE THE REAL THING
- 19. February 2010: IF ONLY I COULD REMEMBER
- 13. February 2010: RANDOM ACTS OF TOMFOOLERY
- 8. February 2010: THINGS ARE NOT GOING AS PLANNED
- 25. January 2010: THAT’S WHAT IT SAYS BUT THAT’S NOT WHAT IT MEANS BECAUSE IT MIGHT NOT WORK
- 17. January 2010: OBSERVING REALITY
- 12. January 2010: THE END OF MODERN CIVILIZATION
Blogroll
- (((Billy))) The Atheist
- An Apostate's Chapel
- Atheist Revolution
- Daylight Atheism
- Decrepit Old Fool
- Dispatches From the Culture Wars
- Forever In Hell
- Friendly Atheist
- God is for Suckers
- Greta Christina's Blog
- On Leaving Fundamentalist Christianity
- Pharyngula
- Spanish Inquisitor
- Stupid Evil Bastard
- The Invisible Pink Unicorn
- Unreasonable Faith
- Whatever
- You Made Me Say It
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- July 2006
THOUGHTS ON BEING A DICK
No, this isn’t a post about Cheney.
It’s not about who’s the better Darrin, Dick York or Dick Sargeant. The only important thing in that argument was that Elisabeth Montgomery was hot.
It’s not about the paranoia of Dick Nixon or the snark of Dickipedia.
It’s about some truly bizarre stories about male genitalia in the bible. “Why is that worth looking into?” you ask. It clearly shows just how primitive and barbaric the foundations of the christian religion actually are. But really it isn’t limited to just christianity.
God instituted circumcision as a sign of his covenant with Abraham. Just think how absurd it is that deliberate mutilation of your sex organ is a sign of a covenant with your god. Just writing that makes for queasy. Not only is it a matter of removing the foreskin there is also the blood involved. Just be glad this religion doesn’t practice female circumcision. That is a ritual that is even worse because it isn’t just the removal of skin, it is the destruction of an important bundle of nerves.
I’m not going to quote a lot of verses but if you don’t have a bible handy I suggest you go to www.biblegateway.com and look them up. In Exodus 4 we have Moses speaking with god and complaining that he is “slow of speech and tongue” and therefore can’t perform his task with pharaoh. Inexplicably in verses 24 – 26 the Lord met Moses at a lodging place and was going to kill him. In order to prevent this Moses’ wife, Zipporah, took a flint knife and cut off her son’s foreskin, and touched Moses’ feet with it. I’m not sure how Zipporah knew what was happening, maybe Moses had an Oral Roberts moment and hollered out, “He’s gonna kill me!” So here’s Moses trying to fight off an invisible god who’s trying to kill him and his wife quickly surmises that circumcising her son will calm the god down. “Junior, get over here quick! And drop your pants!” she yells. Junior slouches over complaining, “Ah, mom, you told me not to drop my pants in front of people anymore.” No nonsense Zipporah drops to her knees, yanks his drawers down, and grabs his penis. Junior’s pathetic whining turns to howls of fear and pain as she whips out her flint knife and deftly slices off his foreskin. Zipporah then takes her bloody trophy, rushes over to Moses who appears to be beating the crap out of himself, and rubs the bloody piece of flesh all over his feet. She says, “Surely you are a bridegroom of blood to me.” So god released his full nelson hold on Moses and let him go.
OK, I’ve embellished a little, but think about it. That’s what those couple of verses say happened. Keep in mind that Moses was the only one actually seeing god. How did Zipporah know what was going on? And even given the culture, why would it occur to her that circumcising her son would appease god? I have no idea how old the kid was but even if he was a baby it could not have been a quick and easy procedure. Then to take the bloody remnant and rub it on her husband’s feet? Just think how absurd this sequence of events actually is. Even more absurd is that god apparently changed his mind because of it and decided to let Moses live which is ridiculous in the first place because god just commissioned Moses to go to pharaoh.
Then we have king Saul offering to sell his daughter Michal to David for the price of 100 Philistine foreskins in 1 Samuel 18. Saul figured the Philistines would kill him but it didn’t work out that way. David, the man after god’s own heart, goes out and kills 200 Philistines and takes their foreskins. Now consider for a moment the carnage of a battle that left 200 dead. Amidst all that you’re going to go around uncovering the dead’s genitals and cutting off their foreskins. Then you put them in a sack and take them back to the king to buy his daughter. Is that not the behavior of barbarians? Look at 2 Samuel 3:14 just to notice David saying he betrothed to himself for the price of 100 Philistine foreskins. Women were property. Property that could be sold for some odd currency.
Let’s back up a bit to Genesis 24 and 47 and consider swearing of oaths while putting your hand under my thigh. It’s not too hard to imagine what putting your hand under my thigh means. You’ve heard of pagan practices based on fertility and sexuality. How is this any different? Barbaric and very primitive.
It doesn’t change in the new testament either. There are far more verses in the new than the old involving circumcision. Circumcision was to be continual without end. To not be circumcised was to be forever cut off from your people. Many sects following Jesus were teaching that you had to be circumcised first. This led Paul to change everything and declare that real circumcision wasn’t of the flesh it was of the spirit and the heart. Paul changed the definition and then suffered persecution to such an extent that he had to keep writing about it. But despite his stance, he still circumcised Timothy because of the Jews in Acts 16. He also boasted of his credentials as a Jew (circumcised on the eighth day – Philippians 3) after calling those who preach circumcision dogs, men who do evil, and mutilators of the flesh. How did the sign of god’s covenant become mutilation and evil?
Can anyone deny this is primitive, barbaric behavior no different than any pagan rituals? Is this really the work of a god? It sounds stupid just writing about it. But there are still those who preach it in modern times (at least there were back in the 80’s.) And have you noticed the christian outrage at body piercings and tattoos? What is so shocking and horrible about that? You guys used to mutilate 8 day old babies and use the leftovers to buy women.
Barbarians, the lot of you!
Fortunately I’m not.
13. June 2009 at 16:44
Cutting off the foreskin is the “destruction of an important bundle of nerves” too. The foreskin isn’t just any old flap of skin, and it’s not just there to protect the glans. It’s easily the most sensitive part of the penis.
13. June 2009 at 17:42
Christianity does not require circumcision. In fact, several New Testament Scriptures speak out strongly AGAINST the practice. Jews and Moslems circumcise for religious reasons, but Christians should not.
You can learn more about Christian teaching on circumcision at:
http://www.catholicsagainstcircumcision.org/
and
http://www.acts15.org/
14. June 2009 at 05:37
We’re talking about the absurd foundation of modern religion. The new Testament throws out one of the founding pillars of the faith. Jesus didn’t ever tell anyone to stop practicing circumcision, Paul did. Jesus said not one jot or tittle of the law would pass away but Paul said the whole thing had been rendered useless. I’m trying to use humor to point these things out.
14. June 2009 at 07:14
But what makes you think it’s any less absurd today? Here’s a guy who thinks circumcision will prevent swine flu: http://mandatorycircumcision.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2009-05-06T21%3A07%3A00-04%3A00&max-results=7
Here’s a list of reasons people have given for circumcising - 380 and still not stopping: http://www.circumstitions.com/Stitions&refs.html
Oh, and it’s generally thought that “feet” in the Zipporah story was a euphemism for Moses’ genitals. Glad to clear that up for you.
15. June 2009 at 03:35
Can you imagine being the sicko priest or tribal leader who instituted the practice? Gathering the men in the village and saying, “Okay, guys, here’s what we’re going to do, starting with you, right now. And bring your sons too?”
How the hell did such barbaric practices ever get off the ground? Why didn’t men revolt en masse? The power that the leaders must have held over them is astounding.
15. June 2009 at 17:35
Hi Frank
Good points, but you’ve fallen for the old cultural/religious myth that male circumcision is ‘just the removal of some skin’ and doesn’t interfere with nerves. In fact it’s long been known that foreskin has ‘nerves in profusion’ - see Taylor’s anatomical research.
As concerns female circumcision, it would be good if you could expose the religious thinking behind this sometime.
See the mother’s awful comments “We don’t know why we do it, but we will never stop because Islam and our elders require it.” in this article with photos:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2009/01/07/ST2009010702598.html?sid=ST2009010702598
See also the Indonesian equivalent:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/20/magazine/20circumcision-t.html
What’s interesting about these articles is that they aroused outrage in the West, and yet what’s being done (the Shafi’i form of female cutting) is comparable or milder than what is done each year to 1.2 million American boys.