Are Amish males circumsized?
- Thread starter B_Lightkeeper
- Start date
Dang....when I originally posted this I had no idea it would create such a fury of religious discussion.
Dang....when I originally posted this I had no idea it would create such a fury of religious discussion.
Vd, uh I mean DV, you should have known with it involving a religous group that it would have evolved into this. That is like asking is it a sin to be a masturbator.
"An emperor story?" It is a fact, not a belief, that Hadrian and Domition both declared circumcision a crime. It in no way challenges your faith that this occurred, but it does challenge your grasp of the difference between faith and fact. There are no preferences in facts. There is or there is not. Either something is true or false.
Below is an image from a Greek crater by the master painter Eurphorios of Athens. Do you see what this athlete is doing? He is tying his foreskin together to prevent the exposure of his glans. Ancient Greeks had no issues with male nudity. In fact the entire Olympic games were conducted nude and in the warm months, most men went about their daily lives completely nude. What they thought obscene was the exposure of the glans. Jewish athletes could compete in the Olympic games IF they had enough foreskin to tie forward of ther glans and prevent its exposure. They even had a name for this ribbon, the kynodesme, and Jews had to wear one or wear a chiton, if they were to go out in public. The books that document the decrees of Hadrian and Domition were written at the time of Rome itself, not pieced together from artifacts which leave scholars to guess what was said.
The Greeks wrote extensively about the beauty of the foreskin and found a long one the object of sexual attraction as shown here in Socrates' (yes the founder of western philosophy) Better Argument:
If you follow my recommendations,
And keep them ever in mind,
You will always have a rippling chest, radiant skin,
Broad shoulders, a wee tongue,
A grand rump and a petite posthe [foreskin].
The Father of History, Herodatus writes about the Egyptians:And keep them ever in mind,
You will always have a rippling chest, radiant skin,
Broad shoulders, a wee tongue,
A grand rump and a petite posthe [foreskin].
The linen cloaks they wear are always freshly washed; this is something they are very particular about. Their concern for cleanliness also explains why they practise circumcision, since they value cleanliness more than comeliness.
If the Greeks thought the circumcised penis so beautiful, why would they say that preserving it is a mark of beauty?
I just gave you several documented sources defending my assertion that your statement that the Greeks and Romans found circumcision attractive is complete bullshit. SHOW US YOUR SOURCES or admit you do not have any if you have the balls to do so.
ME a, "bible thumper,?!?!"" :chairfall: :rofl:
And you know the KJV are the direct words of God? Did God appear to the compilers and translators and tell them what He said? If you believe they were, well then you are and that's OK. You believe this as an article of faith. Biblical scholars, however, disagree with you and point to translation errors throughout the old and new testaments.
What is, or are, "ignorents?"
If the KJV was translated in the 17th century, how can it be, "the first and only bible that was the original[SIC] biblical words of god?" Do you believe that there were no Bibles before the 17th century?
You did though. In the comments above you quite clearly state that you know what you're talking about and that everyone else is wrong. You are asking us to take your word for it.
So glad you read my post explaining that!
yeah he is still wrong in some of his post. for one the romans put a clip through the foreskin of the gladiators so as they wouldnt waste energy on sex .they thought that the energy would be more usefull for fighting. that is just one thing wrong. but ill let him slid on the rest, as this thread is starting to look like some of the circ, threads do at times lol, bickering back and forth its suppose to be a fun site not jerry springer as some one else said in another post some where on here. SO Nick let me know how your birthday went hope you had lots of fun.
JustAsking
Sexy Member
g32,
The KJV New Testament was created from the Textus Receptus which was the basis for Luther's German translation as well as Tyndale's first English translation. This is a simple fact that of which there is no dispute in Christian Biblical scholarship.
The Textus Receptus was created by Erasmus in the early 1500s. Erasmus worked from a limited range of Greek versions of the NT, but even those were pretty recent in Bible history terms. Ironically, Erasmus is most famous to us because of his famous diatribes against all forms of religion. Erasmus was a Humanist who debated Luther and many others on humanism and the folly of religion. He was, however, a brilliant Latin scholar.
As archeology has found hundreds of much older manuscripts, Textus Receptus and its progeny have fallen out of favor having shown to have some 6000+ difference in readings from the much older Alexandrian manuscripts that were uknown at the time of the creation of the KJV.
Although it is a work of great literary beauty, the KJV is considered to be very unfaithful to the earliest manuscripts that are now available to us from archeology.
It wasn't until late 1800s when the 4th century Aleph was found and the 4th century Codex Vaticanus was release by the RC church and then in 1945 when the Dead Sea scrolls were found, that we see now that there is considerable variation between the early manuscripts and the KJV.
But even more interesting is that there were a really large number of different KJV translations. In 1605, William Kilburne published some 20,000 differences in the KJV versions that were available to him.
It eventually became such a scandal of different KJV versions that American church leaders in the 1800s called for a new translation that we now know as the American Standard Version.
No, I'm not.
Infibulation is NOT circumcision. Piercing your ear is not the same as cutting it off (despite what Van Gogh thought).
You'll let me slide? That's rich! The fact is you cannot prove your argument and so are trying to belittle the proofs for my argument with, yet again, no evidence.
Appears to be game, set, and match unless, again, you can offer PROOF.
no the game is not set you live and read your bible the way you want to your way, and ill read my bible my way, and which ever one ends up in hell the one who makes it to heaven will know he or she was right, but since we are both on a porn site i doubt, that it will be any time soon that one will be at st, peters gate wearing the golden crown. or wings
Last edited:
two fucking cents. i grew up in the 2nd largest amish settlement in the united states. and when i was in school, in the locker rooms, those dudes got naked just like everyone else. they only went until their freshman year and after that they were done. but regardless, my eyes... saw plenty of circumcised amish cock and plenty that wasn't. so regardless of the speculation on everyones part as to what they do via the bible and all of that, i have seen amish dick with my own eyes and it's the same as anything else. some do, some dont. word.
I wasn't talking about the Bible. I was talking about Classical attitudes toward circumcision. You have, again, not shown any proof of your argument.
And being on a porn site would worry me no end if I believed in your interpretation of the Bible or even that the Bible is authoritative. As I don't, I'll be enjoying all kinds of sex and porn sites most assured that I will be going to heaven (if there is such a thing). Have fun with your guilt and your lies.
