Abstaining from Blood and Sexual Immoralty is mocked by Jewish Mohels

[highflyertoo]

Abstaining from blood and abstaining from sexual immorality is written in Jewish law because it's very evil,yet there's a contradiction in the ritual of Jewish circumcision for new born babies of the house of Israel.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/baby-dies-herpes-virus-ritual-circumcision-nyc-orthodox/story?id=15888618


The district attorney's office in Kings County Brooklyn is investigating the death of the 2-week-old baby at Maimonides Hospital, but would not disclose the name of the mohel or whether there would be a prosecution.





Youtube is spreading the awareness of these sick molestation rituals through concerned people like these two appalled young teenage girls.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9f-o8my9e7g


So what do you Christians and Non Christians have to say about that?

[CWH]

Abstaining from blood and abstaining from sexual immorality is written in Jewish law because it's very evil,yet there's a contradiction in the ritual of Jewish circumcision for new born babies of the house of Israel.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/baby-dies-herpes-virus-ritual-circumcision-nyc-orthodox/story?id=15888618







Youtube is spreading the awareness of these sick molestation rituals through concerned people like these two appalled young teenage girls.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9f-o8my9e7g


So what do you Christians and Non Christians have to say about that?

Interesting topic. I believe the sucking of children penis by the Rabbi after circumcision is an old Jewish tradition passed down thousand of years ago to stop the bleeding from the circumcision. The ancient Jews do not have any medicine to stop the bleeding, what else would they have used? Sucking the penis after circumcision has the effect of applying pressure to stop the bleeding fast and this is done with the consent of the parents. But how effective is it or what significant is it symbolically I do not know. Such an act of sucking the blood from the penis is only immoral or considered a molestation if there is sexual pleasure or enjoyment derived from it. It is the same as mouth to mouth resuscitation to a male or female stranger; it is immoral and wrong if mouth to mouth resuscitation is done to achieve pleasure than to save a life. Same also, if there is an arterial bleeding from someone's private area (male or female) due to an accident, is it immoral or molestation to touch it to apply pressure to stop the bleeding in order to save his/her life? It is only immoral if such touch to applying pressure to stop the bleeding induced sexual pleasure on the one touching it rather than the moral reason to save a life. Of course, it may look disgusting but have to be done in a moral way to save a life. However, if the one bleeding from the private area refused anyone to touch it or implying so, it will be consider a molestation to touch the private area against his/her wish.

Hope this helps and please do your homework.

There is also a youtube video in which a Rabbi explains the custom of sucking the boy's penis after circumcision:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQq7HgqR8Ns

This on-line article explains the process of Jewish circumcision:

http://www.come-and-hear.com/editor/br_4.html

God Blessed.:pray:

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Abstaining from blood and abstaining from sexual immorality is written in Jewish law because it's very evil,yet there's a contradiction in the ritual of Jewish circumcision for new born babies of the house of Israel.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/baby-dies-herpes-virus-ritual-circumcision-nyc-orthodox/story?id=15888618

Youtube is spreading the awareness of these sick molestation rituals through concerned people like these two appalled young teenage girls.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9f-o8my9e7g

So what do you Christians and Non Christians have to say about that?
I'm glad you brought this up. I was debating a "Torah Keeping" Christian (forum name dr_sabra) who was promoting the idea that Christians should obey the traditions of the Jews (not just the OT) and so I asked him what he thought about the "tradition" of sucking blood from freshly circumcised penises. Here's what I wrote, quoting this article (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/26/nyregion/26circumcise.html) from the New York Times:






A circumcision ritual practiced by some Orthodox Jews has alarmed city health officials, who say it may have led to three cases of herpes - one of them fatal - in infants. But after months of meetings with Orthodox leaders, city officials have been unable to persuade them to abandon the practice.

The city's intervention has angered many Orthodox leaders, and the issue has left the city struggling to balance its mandate to protect public health with the constitutional guarantee of religious freedom.

"This is a very delicate area, so to speak," said Health Commissioner Thomas R. Frieden.

The practice is known as oral suction, or in Hebrew, metzitzah b'peh: after removing the foreskin of the penis, the practitioner, or mohel, sucks the blood from the wound to clean it.

It became a health issue after a boy in Staten Island and twins in Brooklyn, circumcised by the same mohel in 2003 and 2004, contracted Type-1 herpes. Most adults carry the disease, which causes the common cold sore, but it can be life-threatening for infants. One of the twins died.

So all it took was one pervert posing as a "Rabbi" and the next thing you know, you've got an unquestionable TRADITION to enforce! I saw similar kind of craziness in the Zohar. For example, it's author made up the idea that David did not sin with Bathsheba by inventing a host of ludicrous legal loopholes like "Uriah gave her a bill of divorce before going to battle" and on and on and on it goes. There are no standards by which to clean up the crap that infests religions. I find it particularly weird that the poor Jews can't enjoy a juicy steak because they must soak it overnight in water to ensure all the blood is removed while their "Rabbi" can suck a baby's bloody penis! That's just not right. This seems pretty typical of what religion does to the human mind.

He had been arguing quite strongly using the typical kinds of Biblical arguments that go round and round with no resolution (he thought he had the upper hand) until I posted the above, and then he quit the conversation entirely with this closing comment:


Richard,
To quote Mr. Shakespeare, "something is rotten in Denmark". The practice of circumcision is not accompanied by oral suction as a regular practice. I have been at a good number of circumcision ceremonies spanning over 30 years and I have never seen this practiced. Not once. My neighbors (I live in Israel), my relatives, my friends, have never had a mohel do this to their male infants.My own sons and grandsons never had this done. The mohel who recently performed the circumcision ceremony of my grandson has performed over 7,000 circumcisions in his lifetime, and he has never used oral suction. So I don't know what is going on here.(?)

That was the last we ever heard from him.

Some things just can't be justified, despite the efforts of CWH, our forum's indefatigable defender of genocide and Rabbinical penis sucking who posted in the previous post.

[CWH]

I'm glad you brought this up. I was debating a "Torah Keeping" Christian (forum name dr_sabra) who was promoting the idea that Christians should obey the traditions of the Jews (not just the OT) and so I asked him what he thought about the "tradition" of sucking blood from freshly circumcised penises. Here's what I wrote, quoting this article (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/26/nyregion/26circumcise.html) from the New York Times:



He had been arguing quite strongly using the typical kinds of Biblical arguments that go round and round with no resolution (he thought he had the upper hand) until I posted the above, and then he quit the conversation entirely with this closing comment:



That was the last we ever heard from him.

Some things just can't be justified, despite the efforts of CWH, our forum's indefatigable defender of genocide and Rabbinical penis sucking who posted in the previous post.

Friend, you got me wrong, I am totally against baby's penile sucking after circumcision due to hygiene issues. Obviously, there are better and more hygienic ways to stop bleeding from circumcision. My previous post was in respond to the perceived immoral issue that considers penile sucking after baby's circumcision as a blowjob and a molestation. My stand is penile sucking of baby's penis after circumcision is not immoral if there is no sexual pleasure or enjoyment involved and if it is done for medical or religious reason. It is not molestation if consent whether verbal, written or implied was given prior to the procedure. It is of course unhygienic and may caused infections.

God Blessed.

[highflyertoo]

So the babies religion is decided for it as well as it's foreskin being cut off causing severe pain.

Can someone please tell me why a babies foreskin '''''''''''''''''must'''''''''''''''' be cut off without the babies permission? And why are girls clitoris and vaginal lips removed in Isamaic countries? Ever heard of Desert Flower,her sister died because of bleeding to death when aged three.

Why aren't the modern day authorites doing something about it?Are the authorites scared to death of religious people? Are religious people who cut off foreskins and clitorises more terrifying than terrorists?

Probably most authorities are child rapists and tamperers themselves and so do nothing about it. F_ _ _ ing horrendous!!!

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Friend, you got me wrong, I am totally against baby's penile sucking after circumcision due to hygiene issues. Obviously, there are better and more hygienic ways to stop bleeding from circumcision. My previous post was in respond to the perceived immoral issue that considers penile sucking after baby's circumcision as a blowjob and a molestation. My stand is penile sucking of baby's penis after circumcision is not immoral if there is no sexual pleasure or enjoyment involved and if it is done for medical or religious reason. It is not molestation if consent whether verbal, written or implied was given prior to the procedure. It is of course unhygienic and may caused infections.

God Blessed.
Hey there CWH,

I'm glad we agree it is wrong. And I agree that the tradition should not be identified as "molestation" or a "blowjob" since it is not performed for the purpose of sexual gratification. Personally, I think it's just a really stupid tradition that probably began with a perverted rabbi. And that's the problem with "traidition." How do the Jews "clean up" their traidition if a bad practice is begun by some nutty rabbi? Once a tradition is established, there's no way for them to fix it because it.

I don't think there can be any justification of the practice on medical grounds for three reasons: 1) It's not actually helpful. Kid's have died from it. 2) It's not generally practiced for other bleeding wounds. As far as I know, folks don't go around sucking bleeding wounds in any other situation. 3) It's inconsistent with the Jewish religion because ingestion of blood is forbidden in the Bible.

As for "consent" - the victim can't give any because he's just a baby, and the parents aren't really free to refuse because they are compelled by their religion to do what the rabbis teach.

All the best,

Richard

[Twospirits]

Here is a short history on the ritual of circumcision from Biblical times to the present.


CIRCUMCISION: THEN AND NOW

By: James E. Peron, Ed.D.

Milah: Symbolic Circumcision of Covenant
The original Biblical circumcision of Abraham's time was a relatively minor ritual circumcision procedure in which only the redundant end of the foreskin extending beyond the tip of the glans was removed. This was called "Milah". It is from this term that the Jewish Religious Covenant circumcision ritual Bris Milah or Brith Milah got its name.

Following "Milah", a penis so circumcised would still contain a considerable portion of the foreskin and the penis would have continued to go through its natural development since most of the foreskin would have remained intact. Protection of the glans would still have occurred. The foreskin would not be stripped back off the glans and would naturally separate from the glans gradually as the child matures, much as it would had the child not been circumcised. The sensitive frenulum would not have been disturbed or moved, and the foreskin remaining would continue to cover and protect a substantial portion of the glans, especially when flaccid, and the glans would appear as uncircumcised. There would be minimal loss of sensitivity or intended protection.

This type circumcision continued throughout the ages and during the time of Christ. The circumcision of Christ would have been this type circumcision as referred to in the bible. Indeed, biblical reference to circumcision is strictly this form of circumcision. It continued into the New Testament. It has been argued that Michelangelo's David should show David as Circumcised. Interestingly, Michelangelo presented David precisely as he should have appeared following an infant "Milah" circumcision. His glans is essentially covered with only the tip of the glans showing.

Changes to the Ritual Circumcision Procedure:
No other feature was added to the religious ritual until about 140 AD when a second step to the ritual circumcision procedure was introduced.

Periah: The laying bare of the glans
After performing "milah", the cutting back of the end of the infant's foreskin, a second step, periah was then performed. Periah consists of tearing and stripping back the remaining inner mucosal lining of the foreskin from the glans and then, by use of a sharp finger nail or implement, removing all of the inner mucosal tissue, including the excising and removal of the frenulum from the underside of the glans. The objective was to insure that no part of the remaining penile skin would rest against the glans corona. If any shreds of the mucosal foreskin tissue remained, or rejoined to the underside of the glans, the child was to be re-circumcised.

This is a much more radical form of circumcision. It was dictated by man, and is not the biblical commanded circumcision rite. [Italics mine] Its introduction has a bizarre history. The rabbinate sought to put an end to the practice of youths desiring to appear uncircumcised by stretching the remainding foreskin for social economic benefits and for sports competitions. By introducing the painful and debilitating "Periah" they would obliterate the foreskin completely such that proper circumcised Jew could not disguise "the seal of the covenant". From this point in Jewish history, the male's glans is directly affected by the circumcision procedure, and the denuded glans and traumatized infant will heal with considerable nerve damage and loss of sensitivity. Again, it is important to note that this is not the Covenant circumcision of Abraham defined in the Bible. [Italics mine]

Metzitzeh: (Mezzizza/Mizizah) The sucking of blood from the wound
During the Talmudic period (500-625 A.D.), a third step was added to the Orthodox circumcision ritual. It was not universally adopted by all Jewish groups, but became a practice of the more Orthodox groups. This third step was called "Metzitzah". During "Metzitzah", the mohel takes the now badly bleeding penis into his mouth and sucks the blood from the wounded pant. This was most probably adopted to collapse the major blood vessels to stem bleeding and to extract any induced bacteria from the wound and blood system. In effect, it often introduced infection, such as tuberculosis and venereal diseases, with very serious and tragic consequence, as reported throughout history. More modern day mohels use a glass tube placed over the infant's penis for suction of the blood when performing metzitzah. In many Jewish ritual circumcisions this step of Metzitzah has been eliminated.

The introduction of Routine Infant Circumcision:
Routine Infant Circumcision was introduced during the late 1800's and throughout the 1900's on the pretext that it offered health and hygiene benefits, would stop the habit of masturbation, and proffered an endless list of presumed cures for a variety of ailments and diseases. As mother's opted to use physicians to give birth in hospitals or clinics, rather than using a midwife for home birth, the practice of routine circumcision of male infants blossomed and became nearly universal.

As one would expect, many of those experienced in the procedure were Jewish physicians and mohels. They taught new physicians to perform the surgical procedure as was practiced by Jewish ritual circumcision procedures. This meant that most infants underwent a fairly radical complete form of circumcision. What was performed was the Jewish "Milah" followed by "Periah", with most if not all of the foreskin being removed and the frenulum either severely damaged or completely removed. This remains the routine infant circumcision procedure to this day. Many males throughout these past decades have suffered the lasting physical, psychological, and sexual dysfunctional consequences of routine circumcision, which they did not choose.

*Mr. Peron is a medical research writer, educator lecturer, and founder of the Childbirth Education Foundation. He has devoted over thirty years researching the subject of routine infant circumcision. He is regarded internationally as an authority on this subject. He has written extensively for major childbirth, childcare, and parenting publications on this and other newborn care and parenting issues.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CC0QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cirp.org%2Flibrary%2Fhistory% 2Fperon2%2F&ei=FSuhT4-cN4L16AHu7bn8CA&usg=AFQjCNFaNS8RzmnKRVR7qdWSWAzKbDDMOg&sig2=b0Uo3ODa6_NqtmMWRnhvhA


God bless---Twospirits

[highflyertoo]

Here is a short history on the ritual of circumcision from Biblical times to the present.


CIRCUMCISION: THEN AND NOW

By: James E. Peron, Ed.D.

Milah: Symbolic Circumcision of Covenant
The original Biblical circumcision of Abraham's time was a relatively minor ritual circumcision procedure in which only the redundant end of the foreskin extending beyond the tip of the glans was removed. This was called "Milah". It is from this term that the Jewish Religious Covenant circumcision ritual Bris Milah or Brith Milah got its name.

Following "Milah", a penis so circumcised would still contain a considerable portion of the foreskin and the penis would have continued to go through its natural development since most of the foreskin would have remained intact. Protection of the glans would still have occurred. The foreskin would not be stripped back off the glans and would naturally separate from the glans gradually as the child matures, much as it would had the child not been circumcised. The sensitive frenulum would not have been disturbed or moved, and the foreskin remaining would continue to cover and protect a substantial portion of the glans, especially when flaccid, and the glans would appear as uncircumcised. There would be minimal loss of sensitivity or intended protection.

This type circumcision continued throughout the ages and during the time of Christ. The circumcision of Christ would have been this type circumcision as referred to in the bible. Indeed, biblical reference to circumcision is strictly this form of circumcision. It continued into the New Testament. It has been argued that Michelangelo's David should show David as Circumcised. Interestingly, Michelangelo presented David precisely as he should have appeared following an infant "Milah" circumcision. His glans is essentially covered with only the tip of the glans showing.

Changes to the Ritual Circumcision Procedure:
No other feature was added to the religious ritual until about 140 AD when a second step to the ritual circumcision procedure was introduced.

Periah: The laying bare of the glans
After performing "milah", the cutting back of the end of the infant's foreskin, a second step, periah was then performed. Periah consists of tearing and stripping back the remaining inner mucosal lining of the foreskin from the glans and then, by use of a sharp finger nail or implement, removing all of the inner mucosal tissue, including the excising and removal of the frenulum from the underside of the glans. The objective was to insure that no part of the remaining penile skin would rest against the glans corona. If any shreds of the mucosal foreskin tissue remained, or rejoined to the underside of the glans, the child was to be re-circumcised.

This is a much more radical form of circumcision. It was dictated by man, and is not the biblical commanded circumcision rite. [Italics mine] Its introduction has a bizarre history. The rabbinate sought to put an end to the practice of youths desiring to appear uncircumcised by stretching the remainding foreskin for social economic benefits and for sports competitions. By introducing the painful and debilitating "Periah" they would obliterate the foreskin completely such that proper circumcised Jew could not disguise "the seal of the covenant". From this point in Jewish history, the male's glans is directly affected by the circumcision procedure, and the denuded glans and traumatized infant will heal with considerable nerve damage and loss of sensitivity. Again, it is important to note that this is not the Covenant circumcision of Abraham defined in the Bible. [Italics mine]

Metzitzeh: (Mezzizza/Mizizah) The sucking of blood from the wound
During the Talmudic period (500-625 A.D.), a third step was added to the Orthodox circumcision ritual. It was not universally adopted by all Jewish groups, but became a practice of the more Orthodox groups. This third step was called "Metzitzah". During "Metzitzah", the mohel takes the now badly bleeding penis into his mouth and sucks the blood from the wounded pant. This was most probably adopted to collapse the major blood vessels to stem bleeding and to extract any induced bacteria from the wound and blood system. In effect, it often introduced infection, such as tuberculosis and venereal diseases, with very serious and tragic consequence, as reported throughout history. More modern day mohels use a glass tube placed over the infant's penis for suction of the blood when performing metzitzah. In many Jewish ritual circumcisions this step of Metzitzah has been eliminated.

The introduction of Routine Infant Circumcision:
Routine Infant Circumcision was introduced during the late 1800's and throughout the 1900's on the pretext that it offered health and hygiene benefits, would stop the habit of masturbation, and proffered an endless list of presumed cures for a variety of ailments and diseases. As mother's opted to use physicians to give birth in hospitals or clinics, rather than using a midwife for home birth, the practice of routine circumcision of male infants blossomed and became nearly universal.

As one would expect, many of those experienced in the procedure were Jewish physicians and mohels. They taught new physicians to perform the surgical procedure as was practiced by Jewish ritual circumcision procedures. This meant that most infants underwent a fairly radical complete form of circumcision. What was performed was the Jewish "Milah" followed by "Periah", with most if not all of the foreskin being removed and the frenulum either severely damaged or completely removed. This remains the routine infant circumcision procedure to this day. Many males throughout these past decades have suffered the lasting physical, psychological, and sexual dysfunctional consequences of routine circumcision, which they did not choose.

*Mr. Peron is a medical research writer, educator lecturer, and founder of the Childbirth Education Foundation. He has devoted over thirty years researching the subject of routine infant circumcision. He is regarded internationally as an authority on this subject. He has written extensively for major childbirth, childcare, and parenting publications on this and other newborn care and parenting issues.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CC0QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cirp.org%2Flibrary%2Fhistory% 2Fperon2%2F&ei=FSuhT4-cN4L16AHu7bn8CA&usg=AFQjCNFaNS8RzmnKRVR7qdWSWAzKbDDMOg&sig2=b0Uo3ODa6_NqtmMWRnhvhA


God bless---Twospirits

Thanx for the info

[CWH]

So the babies religion is decided for it as well as it's foreskin being cut off causing severe pain.

Can someone please tell me why a babies foreskin '''''''''''''''''must'''''''''''''''' be cut off without the babies permission? And why are girls clitoris and vaginal lips removed in Isamaic countries? Ever heard of Desert Flower,her sister died because of bleeding to death when aged three.

Why aren't the modern day authorites doing something about it?Are the authorites scared to death of religious people? Are religious people who cut off foreskins and clitorises more terrifying than terrorists?

Probably most authorities are child rapists and tamperers themselves and so do nothing about it. F_ _ _ ing horrendous!!!

Circumcision is not as painful as was envisaged, furthermore it was done on babies who probably don.t complain so much about pain. I have sen child circumcision and it is not that painful. Adult circumcision is more painful.

It is believed and research has proven that circumcision makes cleaning of the penis easier and cleaner and thus less prone to skin infection. Some adult opted for circumcision as it provides better sensation during sex.

Jewish circumcision is a reminder of the covenant between God and Abraham or the descendants of Abraham. It serves like a sort of identification just like some homosexuals do with earrings.

As for female circumcision which is only performed on Muslim female, I do not have much knowledge but it was said to reduce pleasurable sensation during sex. But I doubt it's effectiveness as only the tip of the clitoris is cut off. It is more of a religious ritual of no medical significance.

God bless us all.:pray:

[highflyertoo]

Hey there CWH,

I'm glad we agree it is wrong. And I agree that the tradition should not be identified as "molestation" or a "blowjob" since it is not performed for the purpose of sexual gratification. Personally, I think it's just a really stupid tradition that probably began with a perverted rabbi. And that's the problem with "traidition." How do the Jews "clean up" their traidition if a bad practice is begun by some nutty rabbi? Once a tradition is established, there's no way for them to fix it because it.

I don't think there can be any justification of the practice on medical grounds for three reasons: 1) It's not actually helpful. Kid's have died from it. 2) It's not generally practiced for other bleeding wounds. As far as I know, folks don't go around sucking bleeding wounds in any other situation. 3) It's inconsistent with the Jewish religion because ingestion of blood is forbidden in the Bible.

As for "consent" - the victim can't give any because he's just a baby, and the parents aren't really free to refuse because they are compelled by their religion to do what the rabbis teach.

All the best,

Richard

Hello Richard. You have utterly baffled me with your response how the baby doesn't have any say in it because it's a baby. Yet you have even baffled me ten times more by saying the parents are compelled by their religion to do what the Rabbis teach/command.

So now you have agreed the Soldiers were compelled by their religion to obey the Rabbis by hacking the Canaanites and forcing their desire to have sex with the traumatised Canaanite virgins women.

And so the Islamo Fascits can justify themselves by their religion for flying aeroplanes into the WTC.

Seems religion is above human rights.......... I think I'll have some time out from forums as they don't really help at all.

good day to you all . bye

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hello Richard. You have utterly baffled me with your response how the baby doesn't have any say in it because it's a baby. Yet you have even baffled me ten times more by saying the parents are compelled by their religion to do what the Rabbis teach/command.

So now you have agreed the Soldiers were compelled by their religion to obey the Rabbis by hacking the Canaanites and forcing their desire to have sex with the traumatised Canaanite virgins women.

And so the Islamo Fascits can justify themselves by their religion for flying aeroplanes into the WTC.

Seems religion is above human rights.......... I think I'll have some time out from forums as they don't really help at all.

good day to you all . bye
I should have been more clear, you read my intent backwards. I was responding to CWH's final sentence which read "It is not molestation if consent whether verbal, written or implied was given prior to the procedure." My comment was meant as a refutation of the idea that there was any legitimate consent given. Obviously the baby could not give consent, and the parents were under duress because they had been brainwashed from their youth to obey whatever the rabbis taught.

I did not mean in any way at all to justify the atrocities committed in the name of religion. On the contrary, I consider such things as evidence that dogmatic religions tend to corrupt both the minds and the morals of those who profess them.

I hope you don't take a time out - I am enjoying your contributions very much. They are very helpful.

[highflyertoo]

Maybe I did not understand what you were saying before.... Yes religion can and has brainwashed many people from their youth.So much so that people will not even question whether the Rabbi or Preacher is wrong or being delusional.I would say that many of the flock regard the words of preachers such as Benny Hinn as being from God himself.

Yes Richard,indoctrination is a curse in my opinion.It's so hard to break.I sometimes still feel guilty when I question the Bible such as the story of Noah,because it just doesn't make sense how a small boat could carry all the species of animals and the ''food'' to feed them for at least 10 months. Crunching the numbers for Noah's flood story is impossible unless magic was the entire theme to keep them all alive. Noah's Ark flood story is the one that I keep revisting which makes me think it was a fable. Better not get into that on this thread.

It's funny how I read in your blog about Christians having splinter groups,and those groups end up having splinter groups.... Believe or not I was saying the same thing over five years ago.

Just to clear some things up,I'm still fairly religious but have huge doubts about what seem to be unfair contradictions in the scriptures.

Thanks for explaining yourself :thumb:

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Maybe I did not understand what you were saying before.... Yes religion can and has brainwashed many people from their youth.So much so that people will not even question whether the Rabbi or Preacher is wrong or being delusional.I would say that many of the flock regard the words of preachers such as Benny Hinn as being from God himself.

Yes Richard,indoctrination is a curse in my opinion.It's so hard to break.I sometimes still feel guilty when I question the Bible such as the story of Noah,because it just doesn't make sense how a small boat could carry all the species of animals and the ''food'' to feed them for at least 10 months. Crunching the numbers for Noah's flood story is impossible unless magic was the entire theme to keep them all alive. Noah's Ark flood story is the one that I keep revisting which makes me think it was a fable. Better not get into that on this thread.

It's funny how I read in your blog about Christians having splinter groups,and those groups end up having splinter groups.... Believe or not I was saying the same thing over five years ago.

Just to clear some things up,I'm still fairly religious but have huge doubts about what seem to be unfair contradictions in the scriptures.

Thanks for explaining yourself :thumb:

It looks like we are in complete agreement about how dogmatic religion corrupts both the minds and the morals of those trapped in it.

And yes, the various Christianities are all splinters of splinters of splinters. Like shattered glass.

I was wondering about where you were at with religion. Sometimes you sound like a believer struggling with some problems in the Bible, and other times you sound like someone who has rejected it all. If you don't mind my asking, what version of Christianity are you struggling with? I think it would be great if you started threads to deal with the specific issues that trouble you. And it would be very interesting if you started a thread discussing what aspects of Christianity still have a hold on your soul.

Great chatting! :thumb: